COMENIUS PROJECT EUROPEAN VALUES EDUCATION

A CROSS-CULTURAL COMPARISON BETWEEN DUTCH AND TURKISH

STUDENTS
PRELIMINARY DESCRIPTIVE RESULTS
 Melek Gregenli1, Uwe Krause2, Pelin Karaku3, lkay Sda4

THE RESEARCH

Throughout the past few decades, values have been an important issue in social
sciences. In cross-cultural psychology this issue has seen a growing interest since
Rokeachs (1973) seminal work. Values have since then been used as independent
variables to understand attitudes and behavior and as dependent variables of basic
differences among social groups and categories. This last property has encouraged
cross-cultural psychologists to seek common dimensions of values and to study
differences among cultures (Spini, 2003). Values are socially shared conceptions of
what is good, right and desirable. They operate at multiple levels. Most research in
cross-cultural psychology has focused on the individual and national level. On the
individual level (Rohan, 2000; Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz, 1992), values express broad,
trans-situational motivational goals. They affect the way people perceive and interpret
the world and their preferences, choices and actions. On the national level, values
reflecting the solutions groups (e.g., nations, communities, organizations) develop in
response to existential challenges (Hofstede, 2001; Schwartz, 1999). They therefore
play a crucial role in the way that social institutions function (Knafo, Roccas & Sagiv,
2011).

The European Value Study (EVS) is one of the large-scale, cross-national researches
on human values. The program was initiated by the European Value Systems Study
Group (EVSSG) in the late 1970s. The EVS survey was first conducted in 1981 and
interviews were carried out in ten countries. In order to explore value changes,
successive waves of surveys were carried out in 1990, 1999 and most recently in
2008. The initial researchers aimed at exploring the moral and social values
underlying European social and political institutions and governing conduct. Questions
were raised such as: Do Europeans share common values? Are values changing in
Europe and, if so, in which directions? (Halman, Sieben & van Zundert, 2012; p.139).
Mapping the European Values also has a high potential for teaching in geography
(Krause 2010 and 2012).

The main scientific objectives of the present study can be summarized in two
basic parts. These objectives are as follow:

1
Prof. Dr., Ege University, Department of Psychology, Izmir, Turkey. melek.goregenli@ege.edu.tr
2
Senior Lecturer, Project Leader of the European Values Education Project, Fontys University, Department
of Geography, Tilburg, The Netherlands. u.krause@fontys.nl
3
M.A. in Social Psychology, PhD Candidate at Ege University, Institute of Social Sciences, Social
Psychology Program. Izmir, Turkey. pelinkarakus@gmail.com
4
PhD in Human Geography. Research Assistant at Ege University, Department of Geography, Izmir,
Turkey. ilkaysudas@gmail.com
 A preliminary research for the validation of some subparts in the European Values
Study (2008).

To improve the educational materials for Geography, Social Science and Social
Psychology education in Turkey and the Netherlands

The Sample

The sample consisted of 335 college students from Ege University in Izmir, Turkey
(42 males, 110 females and two unreported) and; Fontys University Tilburg, The
Netherlands (118 males and 63 females).

The mean age of Turkish participants was 19.5 years (range = 17-45, SD= 2.60) and
of Dutch participants 19.3 years (range = 17-27, SD= 1.79).

All the participants were first year students. 58.4% of participants in the Turkish
sample were enrolled in the Psychology department, 33.1% in the Geography
department and 8.4% in the Sociology department. 19.9% of the participants in the
Dutch sample were enrolled in the Geography department, 20.4% in the Civics
department and 59.7% in the History department.

Methodology

The method of this study is a field/questionnaire research. Participants filled in a

comprehensive questionnaire form including several socio-demographic questions
(sex, age, place of birth, monthly income etc.). 162 items were asked in the form
including the Portrait Value Questionnaire5, General System Justification Survey6 and
Right-Wing Authoritarianism Survey7 and selected questions from the European Values
Study 2008.

The questionnaire form included some open-ended questions in order to provide a

better understanding about the opinions of the participants on specific topics such as
family, citizenship, immigration, neighbors and environment. Responses to the open-
ended questions were subjected to content analysis and categories were generated for
each open-ended question.

Participants completed the questionnaire in Turkish or Dutch. The survey was

conducted anonymously in groups. Participants were briefed by the interviewer about
the content of the survey and the confidentiality of the data collection. The time
required to complete the survey was about 30 to 45 minutes.

RESULTS
5
Schwartz, Melech, Lehmann, Burgess and Harris, 2001; for the Turkish version Demirutku, 2004; and for
the Dutch version Croes 2008
6
Kay and Jost, 2003, Gregenli, 2005; Gregenli, Umurolu, Erdem & Karaku, 2012
7
Weber and Federico, 2007; Gregenli, 2010; Gregenli, Umurolu, Erdem and Karaku, 2012
 The results of this research were compared to the European Values Study 2008
results. In comparison to initial descriptive results of the European Values Study
questions (see table 1), the remarkable differences between the Turkish and Dutch
samples can be summarized as follows:

Politics

Participants from Tilburg and Izmir are more interested in politics than participants
from the European Value Survey study 2008. Moreover, the university students in both
countries discuss political matters more than the Turkish and Dutch participants in the
EVS 2008 study did.

In both countries, participants in the university student sample tended to

participate more in political actions such as signing a petition, joining in boycotts,
attending lawful demonstrations etc. than the average country results of the EVS 2008
(see table 1).

Religion

Religion in the EVS 2008 sample is much more important for the Turkish (96.7%)
than for the Dutch participants (40.3%). For the university students in both countries
this importance fell by 20%, also when compared to the young respondent group of
the EVS (18-30 years). That means that there is still a big difference. Furthermore in
both countries, holding a religious service for several life events is more important for
the participants in the EVS 2008 research than for the students. When it comes to the
question of whether the church/mosque gives adequate answers to social problems in
their country, the student groups in both countries have nearly the same judgments:
only one fourth of them believe this. Although only one third of the Turkish respondent
group defines itself as being a religious person, answers of several other questions
show more involvement with religion: 92,1% of them f. ex. Believe in God.

Family

Family is important for all samples on the base of both city and country levels.

Immigrants

When it comes to questions about immigrants the Dutch results show that, on the
one hand, the participating students feel much less like a stranger or have the idea
that there are too many immigrants when compared to the EVS 2008 results. They
think much more that immigrants take jobs away, threaten the cultural life and that
citizens should get priority over non-nationalized immigrants when jobs are scarce. For
this last aspect, the student participants of Izmir think less that Turkish citizens should
get priority when compared to the EVS 2008 results for Turkey. They also feel much
less like a stranger in their country because of immigrants and their score on several
items is much lower compared with the results of the EVS 2008, also when compared
to the group of young respondents (18-30 years).

Guidelines about what is good and evil

University samples in both countries do agree more that what is good and evil
depends on life conditions and time period. Compared to the results from the EVS
2008 research in both countries, we may argue that the Turkish and Dutch university
student participants are less normative and their attitudes are similar.

Competition

Compared to the Turkish university sample from Izmir, Dutch university students
from Tilburg do agree more that competition is good and it stimulates people to work
hard and develop new ideas.

Confidence in institutions

There are differences between the order of the first 5 institutions which are mostly
trusted by the participants from Turkey and the Netherlands in the EVS 2008 study and
there are also differences between the university samples in both cities.

The institutions which are most trusted by Turkish participants in the EVS 2008
study are: The armed forces, the Mosque, the police, the Justice system and health
care system.

The institutions which are mostly trusted by Dutch participants in the EVS 2008
study: The health care system, the police, the educational system, the justice system,
the armed forces.

The institutions which are mostly trusted by Turkish university students from Izmir:
The environmental organizations, the armed forces, the health care system, the trade
unions, the social security system.

The institutions which are mostly trusted by Dutch university students from Tilburg:
the educational system, the health care system, the justice, trade unions, United
Nations Organizations.

That the educational system ranks on the first place for the Dutch student group is
not corresponding with the results of the EVS 2008 and the results of the young
respondents (18-30 years). For the students from Izmir it is just the other way around:
the trust of both, the Turkish average in the EVS 2008 and the younger group is much
higher.

Proud to be a Turkish/Dutch citizen

 In both countries the results of the EVS 2008 research indicate that people are
prouder to be a Dutch or Turkish citizen than the students are. This difference is higher
in Turkey than in the Netherlands.

The indicators of being truly Turkish and Dutch

Compared to the Turkish and Dutch university samples, the indicators such as
having been born in the country, having ancestors in the country, respecting the
institutions and laws, living for a long time in the country and speaking the language
of the country in order to truly be Turkish and Dutch are more important for the Turkish
participants in the EVS 2008 (average and young respondents of 18-30 years)
research than for the Turkish participants. The results for the Dutch students are more
in line with the results of the EVS 2008.

Ideas about environment and nature

Also here the results of the Dutch students show only slight variations with the
results of the EVS 2008. The results of the Turkish students show more differences with
both the average results of the EVS 2008 and the results for the young respondent
group (18-30 years): much less of them believe that the balance of nature is strong
enough to cope with the impact of modern industrial nations or that human ingenuity
will ensure that the Earth remains fit to live on. Nearly everyone (according to the
countrys average in the EVS 2008) is willing to give money to prevent environmental
pollution. For the Dutch student the percentage is little higher than 50%.

Table 1: Descriptive Results of the Questionnaire Conducted In Comparison to the EVS 2008 Country
Results
EVS EVS Tilbu EVS EVS Izmi
Q- 2008 2008 rg 2008 2008 r
code NL NL resul TR TR resu
websi young t young lt
te Website version of question
Percentage of people that say politics is very or quite important 58,6 43.85 66,1 50,9 51.46 67,
V5 in their lives 7 5
Percentage of people that say religion is very or quite important 40,2 37.28 21,8 96,7 95.12 74,
V6 in their lives 5 1 7
95,9 100.0 92,7 99,5 99.77 98,
0 8 0
Percentage of people that say family is very or quite important
V2 in their lives
15,4 1.76 20,6 10,9 12.13 16,
Percentage of people that discuss political matters with their 8 1 9
V7 friends frequently
Percentage of people that agree with the statement that when 36,5 36.40 44,2 68,8 68.10 46,
V102 jobs are scarce, employers should give priority to citizens over 3 4
non-naturalized immigrants
Percentage of people that agree with the statement that when 9,86 5.27 2,2 60,3 54.29 12,
V103
jobs are scarce, men have more right to a job than women 2 5
Percentage of people that agree with the statement that there 20,2 8.92 5,0 44,4 42.75 6,0
V104a are absolutely clear guidelines about what is good and evil. 2
These always apply to everyone, whatever the circumstances.
Percentage of people that agree with the statement that there 36,5 36.40 29,3 25,5 25.18 30,
V104
are absolutely clear guidelines about what is good and evil. 8 5 7
b
However, deviating from these guidelines is sometimes justified
 in special circumstances.
Percentage of people that agree with the statement that there 43,2 54.68 65,7 30,0 32.07 63,
V104 can never be absolutely clear guidelines about what is good and 5 3
c evil. What is good and evil depends entirely upon the
circumstances at the time.
19 22.16 2,2 38,7 34.98 9,1
Percentage of people that attend religious services (apart from 9
V109 weddings, funerals and christenings) at least once a week
Percentage of people that think it is important to hold a 40,6 37.56 24,9 57,0 57.12 52,
V111
religious service for a birth 2 7 9
Percentage of people that think it is important to hold a 47,5 53.67 36,7 78,5 76.07 53,
V112
religious service for a marriage 4 8 9
Percentage of people that think it is important to hold a 57,4 59.49 46,3 96,7 94.38 84,
V113
religious service for a death 1 4 3
Percentage of people that say churches/mosques in their 37,1 45.84 33,3 79,0 78.43 64,
V115 country are giving adequate answers to the moral problems and 9 2 8
needs of the individual
Percentage of people that say churches/mosques in their 35,4 49.93 25,6 67,9 66.58 58,
V116 country are giving adequate answers to the problems of family 2 3 0
life
Percentage of people that say churches/mosques in their 56 84.73 59,6 80,1 78.18 74,
V117
country are giving adequate answers to peoples spiritual needs 9 6
Percentage of people that say churches/mosques in their 33,1 40.08 22,0 57,2 54.40 25,
V118 country are giving adequate answers to the social problems 9 7 5
their country faces today
57,6 50.05 32,7 99,3 99.29 92,
V119 Percentage of people that believe in God
1 9 1
50,8 55.16 49,1 94,3 92.22 84,
V120 Percentage of people that believe in life after death
8 3 7
15,7 25.83 18,2 97,9 97.83 80,
V121 Percentage of people that believe in hell
1 5 4
39,7 44.00 31,6 97,9 97.82 80,
V122 Percentage of people that believe in heaven
7 5 4
38,1 38.88 27,7 98,7 98.57 83,
V123 Percentage of people that believe in sin
1 2 1
60,2 44.21 31,2 89,9 85.27 34,
V114a Percentage of people that would say they are a religious person
4 6 9
Percentage of people that would say they are not a religious 32,9 47.43 44,7 9,9 14.49 59,
V114b
person 7 2
Percentage of people that would say they are a convinced 6,79 8.35 24,1 0,14 0.24 5,9
V114c
atheist
10,1 18.67 5,1 67,5 60.95 16,
V128a Percentage of people that say there is only one true religion
1 1 4
Percentage of people that say there is only one true religion, but 13,5 12.81 5,6 28,0 32.88 42,
V128b
other religions do contain basic truths as well 3 5 5
Percentage of people that say there is not one true religion, but 50,5 40.18 33,3 3,81 5.68 34,
V128c
all great world religions contain some basic truths 3 2
Percentage of people that say that none of the great religions 25,8 28.33 55,9 0,63 0.49 6,8
V128d
have any truths to offer 3
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree with the 62,9 61.20 87,8 26,9 31.68 38,
statement that homosexual couples should be able to adopt 8 2 0
V154 children
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree with the 87,1 80.53 94,4 32,1 37.08 48,
V155 statement that it is alright for two people to live together 1 8 0
without being married
Percentage of people that are very or somewhat interested in 60,3 44.97 77,0 48,8 49.22 66,
V186 politics 5 6 0
84,0 88.86 95,5 42,2 46.80 89,
V187 Percentage of people that have signed or might sign a petition
2 2 8
46,5 50.62 68,0 29,9 33.16 70,
V188 Percentage of people that have joined or might join in boycotts
1 2 7
Percentage of people that have attended or might attend lawful 56,9 71.46 84,9 33,5 38.99 80,
V189
demonstrations 2 1 0
Percentage of people that have joined or might join unofficial 24,9 41.43 52,8 11,4 13.06 31,
V190
strikes 4 3
Percentage of people that have occupied or might occupy 17,1 24.58 39,4 8,75 9.20 12,
V191
buildings or factories 3 9
49,4 50.76 45,0 54,1 50.30 43,
Position of political views on the left (1) - right (10) political 6 2 8
V193 spectrum.
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: Competition is good, it stimulates 38,9 40.54 47,2 37,5 36.18 39,
people to work hard and develop new ideas (1) Competition is 8 3 7
V196 harmful, it brings out the worst in people (10)
 Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: Incomes should be made more 54,0 54.21 54,3 38,2 37.25 50,
equal (1) There should be greater incentives for individual 6 9 1
V198 efforts (10)
Percentage of people that agree that the entire way our society 4,37 8.92 6,3 25,2 25.79 16,
V200a is organized must be radically changed through revolutionary 6 7
action
Percentage of people that agree that our society must be 82,0 73.94 80,0 49,4 50.16 81,
V200b
gradually changed through reform 5 8 3
Percentage of people that agree that our present society must 13,5 17.14 13,1 25,2 24.05 2,1
V200c
be valiantly defended against all changes 8 6
Percentage of people that would choose maintaining order in 54,3 52.62 54,0 75,0 71.45 50,
V202a the nation as an important goal to achieve during the next ten 9 1 1
years (first or second choice)
Percentage of people that would choose giving people more say 37,4 29.13 33,6 49,2 51.34 61,
V202b in important government decisions as an important goal to 2 2
achieve during the next ten years (first or second choice)
Percentage of people that would choose fighting rising prices as 37,5 39.73 36,7 52,8 50.03 19,
V202c an important goal to achieve during the next ten years (first or 5 2 3
second choice)
Percentage of people that would choose protecting freedom of 70,6 78.53 75,7 22,9 27.18 69,
V202d speech as an important goal to achieve during the next ten 6 5 4
years (first or second choice)
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 35,1 45.17 15,6 84,6 82.93 52,
V205
confidence in the church 7 5 8
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 54,6 74.10 46,6 89,6 84.19 73,
V206
confidence in the armed forces 1 2 3
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 62,8 66.69 90,6 76,9 73.90 29,
V207
confidence in the educational system 1 8 1
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 41,5 46.00 32,0 31,7 29.48 19,
V208
confidence in the press 5 9 6
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 51,7 63.08 62,2 47,7 51.54 56,
V209
confidence in trade unions 8 7
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 68,9 68.11 59,4 81,7 77.88 53,
V210
confidence in the police 8 8 2
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 48,7 57.42 50,6 57,5 56.42 34,
V211
confidence in Parliament 4 3 1
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 41,5 54.80 46,9 67,6 66.49 41,
V212
confidence in the civil services 2 2 9
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 60,5 66.35 57,6 79,0 71.55 55,
V213
confidence in the social security system 4 7 1
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 45,2 64.46 47,8 38,7 43.63 17,
V214
confidence in the European Union 1 8 6
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 53,5 67.87 56,7 33,6 35.28 16,
V215
confidence in NATO 9 8 5
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 55,5 71.92 59,2 32,6 34.81 21,
V216
confidence in the United Nations Organization 1 2 4
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 70,7 79.80 69,3 77,7 76.66 58,
V217
confidence in the health care system 6 5 5
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 56,3 67.18 62,9 80,8 78.94 32,
V218
confidence in the justice system 6 2 9
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 43,1 55.15 28,5 38,2 35.77 20,
V219
confidence in major companies 7 9
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 52,8 57.64 43,6 47,2 50.01 73,
V220
confidence in environmental organizations 6 9 5
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 33,3 43.75 44,1 30,5 30.90 56,
V221
confidence in political parties 7 7 1
Percentage of people that have a great deal or quite a lot of 49,4 65.89 51,1 53,3 50.58 23,
V222
confidence in the government 2 5 0
Percentage of people that are rather or very satisfied with the 56,1 64.10 72,7 57,4 53.83 33,
V223 way democracy is developing in their country 1 5
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that 92,7 90.41 77,3 93,1 94.51 87,
V229 democracy may have its problems but its better than any other 8 7 7
form of government
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that the 12,3 13.82 18,2 35,7 36.63 15,
V230
economic system functions poorly in a democracy 3 3 3
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that 50,2 58.46 42,7 53,9 58.82 38,
V231
democracies are indecisive and have too much squabbling 2 9
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that 21,7 22.85 18,6 38,2 39.89 15,
V232
democracies arent good at maintaining order 5 8 2
86,7 93.97 80,4 94,9 92.43 76,
Percentage of people that say they are very or quite proud of 6 9 4
V256 being a citizen of their country
V276 Percentage of people that think it is very or quite important to 47,0 54.75 42,5 81,9 77.32 43,
 have been born in the country to be a true citizen of their 2 5 1
country
Percentage of people that think it is very or quite important to 94,3 94.83 89,4 90,5 86.78 77,
V277 respect the countrys political institutions and laws to be a true 7 9 4
citizen of their country
Percentage of people that think it is very or quite important to 21,2 27.03 15,2 86,7 81.75 60,
V278 have ancestors in the country to be a true citizen of their 7 3 3
country
Percentage of people that think it is very or quite important to 98,9 98.24 97,2 83,6 77.70 68,
V279 be able to speak the national language(s) to be a true citizen of 5 3
their country
Percentage of people that think it is very or quite important to 47,0 52.56 58,9 79,3 73.70 50,
V280 have lived in the country for a long time to be a true citizen of 8 5 3
their country
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: immigrants take jobs away from a 46,9 52.67 53,8 65,8 63.33 59,
V268
countrys citizens 2 5 5
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: a countrys cultural life is 46,2 51.39 62,4 62,0 56.98 63,
V269
undermined by immigrants 3 1 3
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: immigrants make crime problems 62,5 63.87 55,0 62,4 59.55 63,
V270
worse 5 1
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: immigrants are a strain on a 55,2 54.58 57,7 62,9 60.72 57,
V271
countrys welfare system 3 5 7
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: in the future the proportion of 54,1 56.76 61,9 63,9 61.09 50,
V272
immigrants will become a threat to society 7 7 6
Opinion on a scale of 1 to 10: for the greater good of society it 59,5 60.07 59,3 45,7 42.90 48,
V273
is better if immigrants adopt the customs of the country 8 1
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that because 26,3 30.07 15,0 30,6 29.62 6,8
V274 of the number of immigrants they sometimes feel like a 4 7
stranger in their own country
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that there are 40,6 43.45 19,2 62,1 62.49 56,
V275
too many immigrants in their country today 1 7 8
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that we are 54,8 43.73 55,6 84,3 83.96 78,
V296 approaching the limit of the number of people the Earth can 6 9 8
support
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that when 66,2 62.95 63,7 90,7 89.77 95,
V297 humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous 3 3 9
consequences
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that human 70,7 61.67 71,4 72,6 69.86 41,
V298
ingenuity will ensure that the Earth remains fit to live on 7 3 2
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that the 25,7 30.11 29,4 59,0 56.56 14,
V299 balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impact of 6 2 9
modern industrial nations
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that humans 24,6 24.12 21,3 70,2 69.06 28,
V300
were meant to rule over the rest of nature 4 7 4
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that if things 60,8 62.26 71,4 91,2 89.02 93,
V301 continue the way they are we will soon experience a major 4 4 8
ecological catastrophe
57,8 60.77 53,7 87,2 89.63 93,
Percentage of people that agree or strongly agree that they 9 9 2
would give a part of their income if they were certain that the
V295 money would be used to prevent environmental pollution

Neighbor Preferences in the Turkish and Dutch Samples

In the EVS, the question about neighbor preference was asked in a close-ended type
question. In our research, the Dutch and Turkish university students were asked this
question both in close and open-ended ways in order to assess the validity of item
type of this question. The open-ended question was With whom you would not
like to live in the same apartment block?/with whom would you not like to be
neighbors? Responses from the university students are presented in the following
tables with the sample sizes (see table 2, 3, 4).
As can be seen from these tables, the responses to the open and close-ended type
of the same question differ from each other in both samples. Close-ended and open-
ended measurements show very different results for the groups that the participants
would not prefer to be neighbors with. The major results from the close-ended type
question, which offers the participant a list of groups, are not as dominant as in the
results from the open-ended type of question. In both the Turkish and Dutch samples,
responses given to the open-ended type of question predominantly refer to the
personal characteristics of a neighbour (such as being dirty, noisy, aggressive... etc.)
rather than belonging to a certain group. These results indicate that the close-ended
measurement for the neighbor preference has to be discussed.

Table 2: Responses of the Turkish University Sample to the Open-Ended Question about neighbor
preference (N=154)

With whom you would not like to live in the same apartment block? / with
whom you would not like to be neighbors? Fr. %
1 Negative personal attributions: (egoists, selfish people, unreliable people, cold
people, noisy people, aggressive / quarrelsome people etc.) 70 28.8
2 Group attributions 61 25.1
2a Political-ideological characteristics (nationalists, racists, extreme rightists/leftists,
separatists, anarchists etc.) 22
2b Religion (extremely religious people, people making repression based on religion,
conservative people, people who dont believe in religion etc.) 16
2c Social class (very rich people, famous people etc). 5
2d People that are perceived as a threat to privacy (close family members, relatives, family
environment etc.) 5
2e Ethnic-cultural characteristics (Gypsies, Kurds, people with different cultures and
beliefs etc.) 4
2f Sexuality (sexual perverts, perverts, horny people etc.) 4
2g Criminals (mafia, thieves, ex-criminals etc.) 4
2h The elderly 1
3 People who are intolerant to me/my lifestyle (thoughtless and disrespectful
people, people who are interfering in my life etc.) 58 23.9
4 Uneducated, narrow minded, dogmatic people 23 9.5
5 Anyone can be my neighbor, it does not matter 11 4.5
6 Politicians 10 4.1
7 I would like to be neighbors with people whom I can get along well 4 1.6
8 Other (My landlord/lady, my enemies, people who threaten my life security etc.) 6 2.5
Total number of items/expressions counted 243 100
 Table 3: Responses of the Dutch University Sample to the Open-Ended Question about neighbor
preference (N=60)* Department of English Language
With whom you would not like to live in the same apartment block? /
with whom you would not like to be neighbors? Fr. %
1 Negative Personal attributions (dirty, untidy, noisy people, aggressive /
quarrelsome people, people who do not know the rules of normal life, homophobic 54.1
people etc) 66 *
2 41.8
Group attributions 51 *
2a Criminals (killers, rapists.. etc.) 13
2b Addicts (Drug users, dealers, alcoholics...etc.) 12
2c Crowded families 7
2d Political-ideological characteristics (racists, neo-Nazis etc.) 4
2e Perverts, paedophiles 4
2f Ethnic-cultural characteristics (Easterners, Turks, Moroccans..., smelly cooking people
etc.) 3
2g People that are perceived as a threat to privacy (close family members, my father, my
family etc.) 3
2h The elderly 2
2i Religion (religious people) 2
2j Social class (famous people) 1
3 People interfering in my life 1 0.8*
4 Politicians 1 0.8*
5 Anyone can be my neighbor, it does not matter 3 2.5*
Total number of items/expressions counted 122 100*

Table 4: Responses of the Turkish and Dutch University Samples to the Close-Ended Question about
Neighbor Preferences in Comparison to the EVS 2008 Results * Department of English Language
EVS EVS Tilburg EVS EVS 2008 Izmir
2008 2008 NL Results 2008 TR young Results
Q- NL young Studen TR Students
code ts (N=42)
websi (N=181
te Website version of the questions )
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 47,55 51.40 52,3 80,58 77.77 83,3*
V46 have people with a criminal record as
neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 9,73 10.56 3,4 42,28 37.76 2,4*
V47 have people of a different race as
neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 55,48 40.86 44,6 62,42 59.48 68,3*
V48
have left wing extremists as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 64,3 61.59 76,0 85,98 82.69 64,3*
V49
have heavy drinkers as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 66,92 55.50 61,5 61,88 59.34 83,3*
V50
have right wing extremists as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 14,12 16.98 21,8 35,71 34.05 45,2*
V51 have people with large families as
neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 29,8 34.07 51,7 74,38 71.72 69,0*
V52 have emotionally unstable people as
neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 17,08 17.23 13,4 5,8 4.57 19,0*
V53
have Muslims as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 13,85 12.15 17,3 47,37 44.23 4,8*
V54 have immigrants / foreign workers as
neighbors
Percentage of people who wouldnt like to 13,17 8.79 9,0 84,13 81.23 52,4*
V55
have people with AIDS as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 73,4 66.71 80,9 92,1 90.42 66,7*
V56
have drug addicts as neighbors
V57 Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 9,52 8.31 5,6 88,92 87.79 23,8*
 have homosexuals as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 7,36 6.75 6,2 67,5 64.83 19,0*
V58
have Jews as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 26,55 18.65 25,0 66 63.14 61,9*
V59
have Gypsies as neighbors
Percentage of people that wouldnt like to 7,17 8.02 3,9 61,12 58.61 7,1*
V60
have Christians as neighbors

RESULTS OF THE OPEN-ENDED QUESTIONS

Thematic content analysis of the responses to the open-ended questions can be
presented as follows:

The Meaning of Family

Participants were asked to describe in short what they understand by family. The
results, which derived from the open-ended question, showed that for the Turkish
participants, family is mostly seen as a unit that makes people feel well, secure and
happy. Family means support, confidence, love and happiness. Besides, the Turkish
participants find family as a social agent which means as a socialization network.
They emphasize the institutional aspect of this unit and define it as an agent that
teaches the basic human values and traditions. Compared to Turkish participants,
most of the Dutch university students define family with a relational and an
operational definition which refers to a different type of network (a group of relatives,
mother, father, sister, brother etc.). There are also a remarkable number of
participants in the Dutch sample who also define this term with its emotional
connotations. Both samples with a similar number of participants define family as a
group of close people independent of blood connection (see table 5, 6).
Table 5: Responses from the Turkish Sample
Can you describe what family means to you? %
1 Family is something which makes me feel well/secure/happy 215 74.4
(Support/confidence/trust/meaning of life/love/happiness/sincerity... etc.)
2 Family as a social agent (Making me myself/preparation for life / building stone 46 16.0
of society/giving basic values / teaching traditions... etc.)
3 A group of close people independent of blood connection: (Intimate friend / 13 4.5
very close ones / people who are always with you, not necessarily having blood
connection/solidarity and sharing group... etc.)
4 Family as a group of relatives with blood connection (Only biological /relatives 9 3.1
such as mother, father, sister, brother / blood connection / people who conceived me...
etc.)
5 Negative attributions (to obey someone / problems / responsibilities / a box which 6 2.1
limits your freedom... etc.)
Total number of items/expressions counted 289 100.
0

Table 6: Responses from the Dutch Sample

Can you describe what family means to you? %
1 Family as a group of relatives with blood connection (Core family, Core/direct 117 66.8
 family and other relatives, mother, father, sister, brother, niece/nephew, uncle/aunt,
grandparents, (blood relatives with whom Ive lived for a long time and grew up with;
blood relatives; who are connected by blood, people who have the same bloodline...
etc.)
2 Family is something which makes me feel well/secure/happy (All my loved 39 22.3
ones; people who are important for me; family take care of me in good and bad
times; Forming a unit together; People who can help me when things do not go well,
People that are always there for me and that are bonded with for life, People I trust
and who respect me... etc.)
3 Family as relatives and friends (My relatives and very good friends; My family 15 8.5
and the people surrounding me that Ive known for a long time and therefore I see as
my own family; Relatives and close friends; My parents, sister and my friend... etc.)
4 Family as a social agent (Group of people who teach me values and beliefs; My 4 2.3
own culture, cohesion, feeling of belonging together; Respect, ethnicity, religion,
purpose; The learning of values and beliefs by people close to me)
Total number of items/expressions counted 175 100.
0

Arguments about being truly Turkish / Dutch

There are several arguments about being a Turkish / Dutch citizen. A considerable part
of the Turkish participants argue that growing up in Turkey is not a must for being
Turkish. These participants believe that place of birth is not a condition for citizenship.
People can be Turkish citizens and feel just as Turkish as a Turk even if they were born
in another country. Thus, a considerable part of the Turkish sample mentions an
understanding of citizenship. However, there are some arguments, which may be
considered as a nationalist view. According to this view, the Turkish participants argue
that being proud and respectful to Turkish history and identity, working for a country
and protecting it are necessary for being a Turkish citizen. Moreover, on the base of an
essentialist view, some of the Turkish participants emphasize that one needs Turkish
ancestry and blood connection to be a Turkish citizen.

The Turkish language also seems to be an important component in order to be a

citizen. Contrary to these arguments, there are also several responses which indicate
that ethnic background, religion or language is not important for being a Turkish
citizen.

For the Dutch sample, we may argue that ones relation to Dutch society seems to be
the most important thing about being Dutch. Thus, to be truly Dutch is strongly
related with the degree of behaving like a Dutch person in society which can be
considered as a nationalist view. Dutch language skills, cultural adaptation and living
in the Netherlands respectfully, and functionality in the society are the most important
components of being Dutch. (See table 7, 8).

Table 7: Responses for the Turkish Sample

Arguments About Being A Turkish / Dutch Citizen Fr. %
1 S/he does not have to have grown up in Turkey 63 25.8
2 Being proud and respectful to Turkish history and identity 41 16.8
3 Ethnic background/religion/language is not important 29 11.9
4 One who calls himself Turkish must speak the Turkish language 28 11.5
5 His/her family/ancestors must be Turkish 20 8.2
6 Official/legal based explanation 19 7.8
7 S/he must have been living in Turkey for a long time 13 5.3
8 Language is not a sufficient variable 7 2.9
9 Those who live in the country for a long time may not feel Turkish so; living in a 7 2.9
country for a long time is not a must.
1 Working for a country and protecting it 7 2.9
0
1 Respect for the official/political institutions is not important: 5 2.0
1
Other: National identity is a very wide concept / all these criteria are important etc. 5 2.0
Total number of items/expressions counted 244 100.0

Table 8: Responses for the Dutch Sample

Arguments About Being A Turkish / Dutch Citizen Fr. %
1 Citizenship regarding ones relation to Dutch Society 10 74.5
8
1 Specific Reference to Dutch Language Skills (Most important is to have Dutch language 60
a skills/ People should speak the language etc.)
1 Specific Reference to Cultural Adaptation and Living in the Netherlands respectfully 40
b (You have to respect Dutch values and norms etc.)
1 Citizen as Someone who Functions Well in Dutch Society (You have to function in society 8
c etc.)
2 Citizenship as a Feeling (You are Dutch when you feel Dutch / How you feel is 15 10.3
important etc.)
3 Citizenship in relation to Birth Place (Being Dutch is a citizenship you get at your 13 8.9
birth/If you want to be a real Dutchman, you have to be born here etc)
4 Someone must want to be Dutch (To be Dutch, you have to want it / He has to want to 5 3.4
be a part of Dutch societyetc.)
Others 4 2.7
Total number of items/expressions counted 14 100
5 .0

Attitudes towards Immigrants Acculturation Strategies in Turkey/the

Netherlands

Participants were asked, with an open-ended question, to explain their views on

immigrants acculturation strategies for the greater good of the Turkish and Dutch
society. The participants reports showed that there are three basic views on this issue,
which are as follows: 1) Ideology of Multiculturalism 2) Ideology of Separation 3)
Ideology of Assimilation. Both Turkish and Dutch participants have similar views on the
acculturation process of immigrants, but the rates of these responses seem to change
in terms of the sample. In both the samples, the most dominant view is the ideology of
separation, which means that immigrants can keep their customs without disturbing
the Dutch/Turkish social order. However, for the Dutch sample this view seems to be
more dominant when it is compared to the Turkish responses. In addition there are
more Turkish participants who are in favor of multiculturalism. These participants
argue that everyone can be free to keep his/her own identity and culture. Finally, there
is also a remarkable number of participants who support socio-cultural adaptation and
assimilation in the two samples as well (see table 9).

Table 9: Turkish Dutch

Opinions On How Immigrants Should Lead Their Life In Turkey / The Sample Sample
Netherlands Fr. % Fr. %

Everyone can be free to keep his/her own identity and culture

37 24.0 12 6.6
(multiculturalism)
They can keep their customs without disturbing the Dutch / Turkish social
49 31.8 89 49.2
order (separation)
They must adapt socio-culturally and/or assimilate
28 18.2 46 25.4
(assimilation)
Total 14
114 74.0 81.2
7
No answer 40 26.0 34 18.8
Sum total 18 100.
154 100.0
1 0

The Meaning of Immigrant

Participants were asked to describe in short what they understand by immigrant.
Most of the Turkish participants define this term as foreigners who live in Turkey. As
can be seen in table 10, this category of people includes the foreigners who came to
Turkey through forced migration, people with foreign background (Non-Turkish people)
and people who preferred to voluntarily settle in Turkey. Most of the Turkish
participants define this term by thinking about the several groups of people who live in
Turkey. Besides there are also some participants who define the term in a general way
which refers to movement between locations such as: people who move from one
country/province to another. Cultural identity is also another reference for being an
immigrant according to the Turkish participants. These participants define an
immigrant as a person with different culture, ethnicity, religion or language.
In the Dutch sample, most of the responses are more relatively based on a
dichotomised national categorization. Most of the participants define the term
immigrant as being a non-Dutchman/a foreigner. Moreover there are also a
remarkable number of participants who define the term with reference to cultural
differences and problems. In general these participants define the immigrant as
someone who does not adapt to the Dutch culture (see table 10, 11).
 Table 10: Responses from the Turkish Sample
Can You Define What Immigrant Means For You?
1 Foreigners in Turkey 11 78.5
7
1 Foreigners who came to Turkey through forced migration (People coming to Turkey for 70 59.8
a employment opportunities/poor workers/People coming as a result of economic and
political reasons, social problems/people who do not have a good life in their
country/people who escape from war / Syrians who took refuge in Turkey recently... etc.)
1 Ethnic-based definition: (Foreigners living in Turkey/People with foreign background/Non- 28 23.9
b Turkish people... etc.)
1 People who preferred settling in Turkey voluntarily (People who came to Turkey voluntarily, 19 16.2
c as a result of their own decision, establishing a life in Turkey... etc.)
2 Definition with reference to movement between locations (People who move from 14 9.4
one country to another/from one province to another/from villages to cities/people who
lived in another country-society for a while)
3 Definition with reference to cultural identity (People with different lifestyles/people 10 6.7
who are excluded-not accepted because of their identities/Kurdish people/people with a
different ethnicity, religion or language)
4 Other 8 5.3
Total items counted 14 100.
9 0

Table 11: Responses from the Dutch Sample

Can You Define What Immigrant Means For You? Fr. %
1 Foreigners in the Netherlands 10 74.8
4
1 Simply a foreigner (A non-Dutchman/Not a Dutchman/A foreigner/Foreigners etc.) 76 73.0
a
1 A foreigner with a reference to his/her purpose/motivation (Someone who comes from 28 27.0
b another country to the NL to work here or to have a better life / People from another
country come to live and work and build a future etc.)
2 A Specific Reference to Cultural Background and Integration (Someone who does 31 22.3
not adapt and does not have Dutch parents and does not speak the language/Someone
who comes from another country and does not respect the Dutch culture/Somebody from
abroad who does not speak Dutch etc.)
3 A Non-Westerner (Someone from a non-western country/Not western/People outside 4 2.9
the EU who settle in the Netherlands/A person who comes from a non western country)
Total items counted 13 100.
9 0

Possible Cultural Adaptation Issues which Turkish Participants Expect If They

Live and Work in the Netherlands

Turkish participants were asked to imagine themselves as an immigrant in the

Netherlands and then asked to mention their opinions on the possible problems which
they may experience regarding the cultural differences between the Turkish and Dutch
culture. The responses of the participants showed that most of the Turkish participants
expect some difficulties relating to the new cultural structures and lifestyle. Most of
these participants expressed that they may have difficulties relating to the social
structure, and some other participants reported that differences with religion,
language and sexual freedom may be a problem when adapting to the culture. On the
other hand, there were a considerable number of participants who think that they
would not have any problem and they would get used to the Dutch culture. Among
these participants, there were also some who would actually prefer to live in the
Netherlands instead of Turkey (see table 12).

The Attitudes of Dutch Participants towards Turkish Immigrants in the

Netherlands

The Dutch participants were asked to think about Turkish immigrants in the
Netherlands and then they were asked to mention what kind of problems in terms of
cultural differences they experience or might experience in the future.
As shown in table 13, the Dutch participants believe that cultural differences regarding
Turkish immigrants might be the biggest problem. There are some participants who
emphasize cultural differences in general. They refer to the differences in values,
social norms and report that these different values, beliefs and traditions cause social
problems in society. Some other participants point out the gender inequality within the
Turkish community. Finally the religion differences and Islamic culture also seem to be
major factors in the cultural adaptation issue.
In the Dutch sample, there are also some participants who support the socio-cultural
adaptation of Turkish immigrants into the Dutch society. There are several arguments
which indicate that Turkish immigrants would resist integrating into the Dutch culture.
(See table 13).

Table 12: Responses from the Turkish Sample

Imagine you live and work in Holland, what kind of problems do you think you
could expect regarding the differences between the two cultures (values,
opinions, traditions, religion etc.)?
1 I would have difficulties related to cultural structure/lifestyle 11 57.9
0
1 Difficulties related to social structure (Dutch people feel free [very relaxed] in all 57
a subjects/so much freedom-feeling free to do anything may derange the society/here
there is too much freedom in society... etc.)
1 Difficulties related to religion (I would have a problem because of the difference in 21
b religion / A real Muslim must be able to arrange his/her life according to Islam / I would
have problem onIslamic special days / I wouldnt be able to find mosques / Pork meat...
etc.)
1 Difficulties related to language (I would have problems because of the language... etc.) 14
c
1 Difficulties related to sexual freedom (I would be disturbed by homosexuality/it would 5
d be difficult for me to get used to it... etc.)
1 Fear of being excluded-feeling lonely (I would feel lonely / I would miss my family... etc.) 9
e
1f Other (Drug using is legal and it is not punished / food... etc.) 4
2 I would not have any problems / I would get used to Dutch culture 69 36.3
2 After some time, there wont be any problem 47
a
2 Even if I get used to Dutch culture, I would not interiorize it 5
b
2 I would already prefer to live in Holland instead of Turkey 17
c
3 Weather conditions and climate 2 1.1
4 I dont know about the living conditions in the Netherlands / I have no idea 9 4.7
Total items counted 19 100.
0 0

Table 13: Responses from the Dutch Sample

Think about the Turkish immigrants living in Holland. What kind of problems Fr. %
in terms of cultural differences (traditions, values, opinions, religion) do you
experience or you think might occur?
1 Cultural Differences as a problem 10 62.
1 7
1 Cultural Differences in General (The difference in values, beliefs and traditions... etc.) 38
a
1 Reference to Gender Inequality within the Turkish Community (Women are forbidden 33
b to work by their husbands and do not get the same rights/Women are still not equal to
men/They do not respect the values of women./ Boys are allowed to do everything and
girls are allowed to do nothing... etc. )
1 Reference to Religion (Islamic culture and ideals that could clash with the existing 40
c Christian culture and ideals/The fact women must cover their heads/the importance of
religion/The faith and the strength of this faith/Different religion... etc.)
2 Integration Within The Dutch Society (This group is tight-knit, the we feeling is 25 15.
strong / the isolation of the group, so there cannot be a mixture therefore a distance is 5
created. They dont adapt, we dont accept, leads to clashes/Migrants build
neighborhoods, small Turkey, they hold on to their beliefs and dont want to adapt...
etc.)
3 Radicalism and Narrow-Mindedness (Fundamentalism / they have a closed opinion, 7 4.3
their culture is true, others arent / I think that Turkish people should not always react
when something is said about their religion. / Radical opinions which can cause a threat
/ Radicalism... etc.)
4 No Problems 13 8.1
5 Others 15 9.3
Total Items Counted 16 100.
1 0

Attitudes towards Environmental Pollution

Participants were asked to express their arguments for their agreement/disagreement

of the statement I would give part of my income if I were certain that the
money would be used to prevent environmental pollution. Most of the Turkish
students agreed with this statement (93.2%). But when asked to explain their answer
to this question, the Turkish participants seem to have more doubts. Approximately
one third of the Turkish students reported that they had doubts, or that they would
only give part of their income if they were definitely sure that the money would be
used to prevent environmental pollution. On the other hand a reasonable part of the
Turkish participants expressed that they have a desire for a better natural world and
they would like to contribute to help nature. There were a few people who came up
with other solutions instead of giving money. In the Dutch sample, a remarkable
number of participants also had doubts whether the money would really be used to
protect the environment. More often than in the Turkish sample, they referred to their
economic situation. These participants argued that they would give part of their
money if they had enough money. Other reasons given were that an individual
contribution would not be sufficient, or that the environment has not been considered
as an important problem yet. These arguments were not derived from Turkish sample
(see table 14).
Table 14: Turkish Dutch
Responses from the Turkish and Dutch Samples Sample Sample
Fr. % Fr. %
I do not trust / If I could trust, I would give money
(If there were a reliable organization, I would do my best / There must 49 31.8 21 11.6
be reliable proof...etc.)
Desire for a better natural environment
(Everybody would like to contribute for the nature that we live in. / It is a 42 27.3 48 26.5
duty for everyone.... etc.)
It is too late / Humankind has had too much negative impact on
nature
12 7.8 8 4.4
(The death of our planet will be caused by humankind / After a while, we
wont be able to save nature... etc.)
Not having enough money for it / The capable (the rich,
government, big companies etc.) should do it
9 5.8 25 13.8
(I would give if I had enough money / Money is not easily earned / There
are many rich people who can do it, why me?...etc.)
Other solutions proposed rather than paying money (recycle etc.)
6 3.9 14 7.7
Environment has not been considered as an important problem
yet 0 0.0 6 3.3

An individual contribution would not be sufficient

0 0.0 18 9.9
Total answered 118 76.6 140 77.3
No answer 36 23.4 41 22.7
Sum Total 154 100,0 181 100,0

Discussion

Comparing the EVS 2008 study results with the results of the present study generally
show that the attitudes of the student participants in the two cities are different from
the attitudes of participants in the EVS 2008 study. This may, of course, be due to their
educational level, their age or other factors. However, it also shows that despite the
differences these two groups have more in common than the maps, with the average
results of the EVS 2008, show.

The answers to the open-ended questions give more insight into the mind-set of the
participants and how some of the questions of the EVS study might be interpreted. For
instance, examining the validation of the neighborhood question showed that there
are some limitations relating to some types of question. This item was asked with a
closed-ended question in the EVS study. The comparison of different measurement
types (open-ended/closed-ended) showed differences or similarities in the students
answers, depending on the type of measurement. There is a similar finding for the
question about family. Family seems to be highly important for both the university
students and the participants of the EVS 2008 (over 90%). However, what people
understand by family is quite different in the Turkish and Dutch cultural settings. When
considered that such a difference was detected through the open-ended type
question, it can be noted that comparing two different cultures only through
quantitative methods provides a relatively limited understanding. Thus, it seems to be
important to test some quantitative findings with qualitative methods as well.

When asked about cultural adaptation problems between Turkish and Dutch people in
the context of the Netherlands the results of this research also indicated that the
problems mentioned by both groups do not seem to be based on strict prejudices.
They are more rational and related to realistic life situations, which is promising in a
context of mutual understanding between the younger groups.

The results of this research can provide a valuable contribution when using the
teaching strategies, together with the other resources of the European Values
Education project offered on the website (www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu). The videos
of young people and the different map tools are especially valuable, which not only
allow a look at country averages but also at different respondent types.

A report about the relations between the EVS questions and other social psychological
variables (General System Justification, Right-Wing Authoritarianism and Portrait
Values) will be published in English on this website. In the further stages of the
analysis, more of these inter-relations will be examined.

REFERENCES

CROES, E. (2008) De invloed van acculturatie op OCB bij allochtonen. Faculteit

Psychologie en Pedagogische Wetenschappen Vakgroep Arbeids- en
Organisatiepsychologie Academiejaar 20072008 Eerste Examenperiode. Universiteit
Gent. Gent (Promotor: Prof. Dr. Johnny Fontaine)

DEMRUTKU, K. (2004) Turkish Adaptation of the Portrait Values Questionnaire

Unpublished Manuscript, Middle East Technical University. Ankara

GREGENL, M. (2010) evre Psikolojisi: nsanMekn likileri. (Environmental

Psychology: Human-Space Interactions) stanbul Bilgi niversitesi Yaynlar. Istanbul

GREGENLI, M. (2005) iddet ve kenceye Ynelik Tutumlar: Diyarbakr Aratrmas.

(Attitudes toward Violence and Torture: Diyarbakr Field Research). Diyarbakr Barosu
Yaynlar. Diyarbakr

GREGENL, M., UMUROLU, ., MR, E., KARAKU, P. (2012) Muhafazakrlkla likili Sosyal
Psikolojik Tutumlar: Bir Balang almas (Social psychological background of
conservatism: A preliminary of research) 17. Ulusal Psikoloji Kongresi 25-28 Nisan,
Boazii niversitesi, stanbul
HALMAN, l., SIEBEN, I. & Van ZUNDERT, M. (2012) The Atlas of European Values: Trends
and Traditions at the turn of the Century. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV.

KAY, A. C., JOST, J. T. (2003) Complementary justice: Effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but
honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice
motive Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823837.

KNAFO, A., ROCCAS, S. & SAGIV, L. (2011) The Value of Values in Cross-Cultural Research: A
Special Issue in Honour of Shalom Schwartz.

KRAUSE, U. 2010. The Atlas of European Values Project: Possibilities of Mapping the Values of
Europeans and Challenges for Geography Ege Corafya Dergisi. 19 (1): 1-12

KRAUSE, U. 2012. The Atlas of European Values Project: Mapping the Values of Europeans
for Educational Purposes European Journal of Geography 3(2): 54-71

SCHWARTZ, S. H., MELECH, G., LEHMANN, A., BURGESS, S., HARRIS, M., OWENS, W. (2001)
Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different
method of measurement Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, pp. 519542

SPINI, D. (2003) Measurement Equivalence of 10 Value Types from the Schwartz Value Survey
across 21 Countries Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 34, pp.3-23.

WEBER, C., FEDERICO, C. M. (2007) Interpersonal attachment and patterns of ideological

belief Political Psychology, 28, 389416
This project has been funded with support from the European Commission. This publication reflects the views
only of the author, and the Commission cannot be held responsible for any use which may be made of the
information contained therein.