The Relationship Between Values and Academic Major in a Sampled Chinese University Students in Hong Kong

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between values and academic major in university students in Hong Kong. The study used a survey based on a convenience sample of 645 university students in Hong Kong who responded to a questionnaire comprising Schwartz’s Values Survey and Super’s Work Values Inventory. Comparison between several majors of study and their counterparts reveals that business, as well as humanities and art, students demonstrated general and work values in accordance with the literature. This gains partial support to the claim that there is a close connection between values and choice of academic majors.

Keywords

general values work values Hong Kong college majors

Introduction

Values are beliefs, standards guiding a person, and cognitive structures with behavioral and affective dimensions for evaluating self and others and have been identified as one of the key constructs in vocational psychology. They help a person establish personal goals and enable him or her to meet personal needs in socially acceptable ways (Brown, 2002).

Relevant to career counseling practice, values influence the occupational choice-making process, career chosen, and job satisfaction. Making career choices that match with values is fundamental to satisfaction. In a sense, values are even more important than interests in making decisions as interests cannot serve as an internalized standard guiding a person’s moving toward the idealized end states/goals (Brown & Crace, 1996).

Closer inspection reveals that values can be further categorized into broad types with reference to different situations or settings.

General Values Versus Work Values

Values can be related to broad concepts applied to most situations, or confined merely to a specific situation. In addition, values can refer to different foci or life domains. In the broadest context, they can be applicable in all settings and thus defined as general values or life values. When they are confined merely to the work setting, they are specified as work values (Maierhofer et al., 2002). The relationship between the two constructs is not simple and straightforward. Work values can be regarded as a subset of general values (Zytowski, 2004) while other researchers suggest that the reverse is true―with general values being a subset of work values (Selmer & de Leon, 1996). Most researchers and theorists believe that general values and work values are separate but related constructs (Lyons et al., 2006).

General values can be best conceptualized by Schwartz’s (1992) theory of universal human values system that postulates 10 discrete types of values. The values are universalism, benevolence, tradition, conformity, security, power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction, which may be mutually compatible or conflicting. The 10 values together form four higher-level values, namely, openness to change, conservation, self-enhancement, and self-transcendence. Later, Schwartz refined his theory proposing 19 kinds of basic individual values in a circular order under the four higher-order subscales with the same name as the previous one (Schwartz et al., 2012).

Work values can be measured by Super’s Work Values Inventory (WVI). To Super (1995, p. 54), work values are “objectives that people seek in order to satisfy their needs” and are composed of 15 subscales under three major categories:

Intrinsic work values: altruism, creativity, achievement, aesthetic, independence, management, and intellectual stimulation;

Extrinsic work values: economic returns, security, prestige, and way of life; and

Concomitants: supervisory relations, surroundings, associates, and variety.

Ros et al. (1999) extended Schwartz’s (1992) theory of universal human values to work setting and postulated that there were both compatible and conflicting parallel pairs of values across the “general” and “work” categories—“openness to change” (general values) corresponding to “intrinsic work values”; “self-enhancement values” to “prestige work values”; “self-transcendence values” to “social work values”; “conservative values” to “extrinsic work values.” In this way, the general and work values are linked. Wong’s (2014) study supported Ros et al.’s (1999) postulation based on a sample of college students in Hong Kong.

Close Connection Between Values and College Majors

Values are found to influence a wide variety aspects of behaviors, including decision-making and strategy, attitudes and behavior, aspirations, commitment and effectiveness, achievement and creativity, loyalty, evaluation and justification of self and others, and organizational structure (Aldag & Brief, 1975; Ali & Schaupp, 1992; Bing, 2004; Connor & Becker, 2003; Davis & Rasool, 1988; Guth & Tagiuri, 1965; Knoop, 1991; Rokeach, 1973, as cited in Ali & Al-Kazemi, 2005). Particularly relevant to career counseling work in universities, values are thought to be the major determinant of vocational choice (Rounds, 1990). Several researchers, including Duffy and Sedlacek (2007) and Rounds (1990), found that values could explain career decision-making of respondents better than interests.

Studies have consistently demonstrated the close relationship between values and college students’ major of study (Mitchell et al., 2008). Examining the profile of personal values for health sciences students, Jiménez-López et al. (2012) reported that nursing and physiotherapy students ranked social relationship values (e.g., friendship), ethical values (e.g., respect, integrity), familism values (e.g., having a family), health values (e.g., leading a healthy life), and affective values (e.g., love) higher. Suarez and Shanklin (2004) reported that students majoring in dietetics scored achievement, economic security, ability utilization, personal development, altruism, and working conditions higher in the Values Scale than did nondietetic counterparts. Business students searched for different desirable end-states, individual achievement, responsibility, strong sense of independence, co-worker relationship, recognition, and material rewards (Ondrack, 1973). Furthermore, Myyry and Helkama (2001) reported that business students gave higher priority to power and achievement values. Gilbert et al. (2010) further distinguished the differences among business students in various disciplines—accounting/finance/information technology students valued the opportunity for intellectual challenge and preferred concrete information; marketing students valued creativity and preferred interacting verbally and being liked by others; and hospitality management students have the strongest preferences for helping others. Students majoring in social sciences and humanities tend to put strong emphasis on egalitarianism, tolerance, and freedom and less emphasis on business (Biddle et al., 1990; Duff & Cotgrove, 1982; Jennings, 1993; Sidanius et al., 2003, as cited in Mitchell et al., 2008), coupled with achievement, independence, variety, aesthetic, and altruism (Neumann & Neumann, 1983). Myyry and Helkama (2001) found that social science students scored higher in universalism values. Technology students attached higher values to security values (Myyry & Helkama, 2001; Smithers, 1969), economic returns (Smithers, 1969), associates, and creativity (Neumann & Neumann, 1983). Huntley and Davis’s (1983) longitudinal study even demonstrated that undergraduates’ Study of Value scores among seven groups of academic majors of study could be served as predictors of their occupations 25 years later.

All these studies pinpointed the close relationship between values and college major in mainly the Western countries. The basic questions are, “Does the relationship between values and college major in the Western countries also apply to Hong Kong context?” and “Do students with different academic majors exhibit different profiles of general and work values?” This study is established to investigate the relationship between the general and work values of the undergraduate students with five different groups of academic majors in Hong Kong. This is the first empirical study of this kind in Hong Kong. The close connection between values and college majors (if established in the present study) supports the claim that values play a crucial role in shaping career outcomes, including choice of academic majors. Once established, it has implications for career counseling practice in Hong Kong.

Hypotheses

Based on the literature review stated above, five hypotheses were postulated under the value labels corresponding to Schwartz’s theory and Super’s typology of work values:

Hypothesis 1: Students majoring in health science rate higher in general values, such as benevolence, security, achievement, and tradition, and work values, including altruism, achievement, economic returns, and surroundings than their non-health-science counterparts.

Hypothesis 2: Students majoring in business rate higher in general values, such as achievement, power, and work values, including achievement, independence, associates, economic returns, prestige, and management.

Hypothesis 3: Students majoring in social sciences rate higher in general values, such as universalism and benevolence, and work values, including achievement, independence, variety, aesthetic, and altruism.

Hypothesis 4: Students majoring in arts and humanities rate higher in general values, such as universalism, benevolence, stimulation, and self-direction and work values, including creativity, aesthetic, and independence.

Hypothesis 5: Students majoring in science and engineering rate higher in general values, such as security, and work values, including economic returns, associates, and creativity.

Career Counselling in Hong Kong

In Hong Kong, career counseling service is rare in primary schools, whereas life and career planning are widely available in secondary schools. In fact, life and career planning receive more and more attention in Hong Kong. In the Chief Executive Policy Address (2014), the Chief Executive announced that secondary schools would be provided with an additional recurrent grant equivalent to the salary of a graduate teacher to implement life and career planning education starting from the 2014/2015 school year (Chief Executive Policy Address, 2014). Schools can also opt for recruiting a full-time teacher for implementing career education to replace the Career and Life Planning Grant (CLPG) since 2016/2017 school year (Legislative Council Panel on Education, the HKSAR, 2019). In addition to teaching duties, career teachers are responsible for career guidance and counseling in secondary schools in Hong Kong (Yuen et al., 2014). However, comprehensive and personalized interventions aiming at self-exploration are uncommon (Leung, 2002). A more professional and comprehensive career services are provided by the student affairs offices or career centers in the universities. Both the quantitative and qualitative assessment tools are commonly used, although the former John Holland’s Self-Directed Search, Myers–Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), Career Dimension, and so on are predominantly adopted in the student affairs offices in universities of Hong Kong (Yim et al., 2015). Furthermore, instruments tapping on career interests and personality are widely used, whereas inventories measuring general and work values are seldom applied in career assessment. This reflects that values-based counseling approach and relevant assessment tools are ignored. The current study aims at directing the attention to the important roles of values in career counseling and research.

Method

Respondents

The 645 university students were recruited on a voluntary basis by staff from both academic departments and student affairs offices through convenience sampling. Among them, 56.4% were females. Age ranged from 18 to 29 with a mean of 20.8. Major of study included business (23.7%); engineering, mathematics, physical science (27.6%); social and behavioral sciences (17.7%); health science (mainly nursing) (14.7%); and arts and humanities (16.3%). In terms of year of study, 43.9% were from Year 1, 36.5% from Year 2, and 19.6% from Years 3 and 4.

Procedure

After signing the written consent form, respondents were invited to complete the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS-58) and the WVI with personal information. They completed the questionnaires in their own time and then returned them anonymously to the Researcher. One-way analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was performed to analyze the data with college major as the independent variable, values (SVS-58 and WVI scores) as dependent variables, and gender as the covariate or confounding factor. The reason for treating gender as confounding factors was because it was well documented that there were gender differences in general values orientations and work values (Beutel & Marini, 1995; Busch-Heizmann, 2015; Lips & Lawson, 2009; Weisgram et al., 2010). The major grouping was based on Morgan et al.’s (2001) classification.

Measures

SVS-58

General values were measured using a Chinese version of SVS-58, a 9-point scale, ranging from −1 (opposed to my principles) to 0 (not important) through to 7 (of supreme importance) and indicating the degree of importance of each value as a guiding principle in their own life. The Cronbach’s alpha values of SVS-58 subscales was found to range from .501 to .770 with a median of .636 in Wong’s (2014) study, which was quite similar to the findings of Schwartz et al.’s (2001) and Luk and Bond’s (1993) studies.

Super’s WVI

Work values were measured by the 45-item WVI, a 5-point scale, ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). The scale contains 15 subscales, including intellectual stimulation, altruism, aesthetic, management, creativity, achievement, economic returns, prestige, security, supervisory relations, associates, surroundings, variety, and way of life. The reliability and validity of the instrument have been well established (Neuman et al., 1980). The Chinese version of both scales was validated using local samples by Wong (2014). The reliabilities of WVI and SVS-58 were found good and satisfactory among Hong Kong Chinese university students, except subscales hedonism (SVS; Cronbach’s α = .329), aesthetic (WVI; Cronbach’s α = .420), achievement (WVI; Cronbach’s α = .502), and way of life (WVI; Cronbach’s α = .494).

Results

Hypothesis 1

Health Sciences students were reported to have significantly higher altruism, F(4, 638) = 12.962, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.075, and lower aesthetic work values, F(4, 637) = 23.131, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.127, than their non-health-science counterparts after controlling for the effect of gender. In addition, they had lower ratings in management, F(4, 637) = 5.626, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.034; variety, F(4, 638) = 5.845, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.035; independence, F(4, 637) = 5.107, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.036; and security work values, F(4, 638) = 2.785, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.017; power, F(4, 635) = 4.551, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.028; and self-enhancement general values, F(4, 638) = 7.593, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.045, than Business students, and lower mean scores in creativity, F(4, 649) = 7.593, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.045, and variety work values and self-direction, F(4, 631) = 6.125, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.037, and openness to change, F(4, 628) = 6.033, p < .000, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.037, than Humanities & Art students. Finally, they displayed lower creativity work values than Science and Engineering students and lower independence work values than Social Sciences students. Although health sciences students recorded highest ratings in benevolence general values and lowest scores in economic returns work values, no significant difference in conformity, tradition, achievement, and tradition general values was found (Table 1 and Figure 1). On the whole, merely altruism work values matched the prediction of Hypothesis 1. Accordingly, Hypothesis 1 is rejected and the null hypothesis that students majoring in health science either have no significant difference or have lower ratings in benevolence, security, achievement, tradition general values, achievement work values, economic returns, and surroundings than non-health-science students is accepted.

Table 1.

SVS Raw Scores and Super’s WVI Subscale Scores of the Respondents From Different Major of Study Based on ANCOVA Results.

Variable	1. Science and engineering	2. Social sciences	3. Health science	4. Business	5. Humanities and art	Remarks
Variable	N = 178	N = 114	N = 94	N = 153	N = 104	Remarks
WVI
@Creativity***	3.4082	3.3538	3.0632	3.3312	3.7079	1 > 3; 5 > 1, 2, 3, 4
@#Management**()	2.9190	2.9503	2.7333	3.1678	2.9135	4 > 1; 4 > 3; M > F
#Achievement(*)	3.8832	3.9292	3.9263	3.9586	3.9968	F > M
#Surroundings(***)	3.9700	4.0380	4.0702	4.0654	4.1282	F > M
#Supervisory Relation(*)	4.1648	4.2456	4.2596	4.2854	4.2340	F > M
#Way of Life(***)	4.2781	4.4518	4.2474	4.2941	4.2981	F > M
@#Security(*)	3.7622	3.7193	3.6456	3.9216	3.6859	4 > 3; F > M
@#Associates()	4.0187	4.0468	3.9789	4.1656	3.9199	4 > 5 (η² = 0.022); F > M
@Aesthetic***	2.7949	2.6637	2.2263	3.0719	3.2596	5 > 1, 2, 3; 4 > 1, 2, 3; 3 < 1; 3 < 2
Prestige	3.4757	3.4912	3.4807	3.6536	3.5192
@#Independence**()	3.2034	3.2544	2.9526	3.4118	3.2356	2 > 3; 4 > 3; M > F
@Variety***	3.0019	3.1930	2.9754	3.3007	3.3974	4 > 1; 4 > 3; 5 > 1; 5 > 3
Economic Return	4.1030	4.1842	4.0667	4.2135	4.1058
@#Altruism*()	3.5131	3.8158	4.1368	3.5207	3.5417	3 > 5,4,2,1; F > M
#Intellectual Stimulation(*)	3.4064	3.3187	3.4105	3.4423	3.4199	M > F
SVS (Raw score)
#Conformity(**)	4.4457	4.3432	4.3172	4.5497	4.5202	F > M
#Tradition(**)	3.5022	3.6106	3.4989	3.6248	3.7238	F > M
Benevolence	4.7910	4.7982	4.9140	4.8882	4.8097
Universalism	4.4788	4.5115	4.5273	4.3922	4.6623
@Self-Direction***	4.7180	4.6351	4.5849	4.6252	5.0529	5 > 1, 2, 3, 4
@Stimulation*	3.4708	3.4041	3.5390	3.6842	4.0224	5 > 1; 5 > 2
Hedonism2	4.6130	4.4137	4.5201	4.5811	4.7605
Achievement	4.4087	4.4627	4.2872	4.6100	4.4407
@#Power*()	3.1348	3.2000	3.0404	3.5671	3.0514	4 > 1, 3, 5; M > F
@Security*	4.4730	4.3911	4.5000	4.7033	4.4427	4 > 2
@Openness to change***	4.0981	4.0149	4.0567	4.1257	4.5083	5 > 1, 2, 3, 4
#Conservation(*)	4.1500	4.1478	4.1214	4.3117	4.2704	F > M
@Self-enhancement**	3.7879	3.8334	3.6638	4.1037	3.7461	4 > 1, 3, 5
Self-transcendence	4.6349	4.6625	4.7174	4.6451	4.7374

Note. @ Significant difference in college major; # significant difference in gender; multiple comparison tests used Bonferroni adjustment. ANCOVA = analysis of covariance; WVI = Work Values Inventory; SVS = Schwartz Values Survey.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001. ***(*)p@ < .001 and p# < .05. **(*)p@ < .01 and p# < .05. ***(**)p@ < .001 and p# < .01.

Figure 1.

Testing of Hypothesis 1 based on ANCOVA results.

Hypothesis 2

Business students tended to have higher general values in power and self-enhancement, and work values in aesthetic than non-Business counterparts. Compared with both Science & Engineering and Health Sciences students, they rated higher scores in management, aesthetic, and variety work values. In addition, they scored higher in associates work values, F(4, 638) = 2.831, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.017, and power and self-enhancement general values but lower in creativity work values, and self-direction and openness to change general values than Humanities & Art students. Finally, they espoused higher values in security general values, F(4, 634) = 2.674, p < .05, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.017, than Social Sciences students and higher values in security and independence work values than Health Sciences students. Despite the fact that there was no statistically significant difference, they exhibited highest ratings in achievement work values, achievement general values, prestige, and economic returns among the five groups. Overall, half of the general and work values (e.g., power, management, independence, and associates) could be predicted by Hypothesis 2 (Table 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 2.

Testing of Hypothesis 2 based on ANCOVA results.

Hypothesis 3

Students who had been studying Social Sciences put less emphasis on general values, such as self-direction; stimulation, F(4, 635) = 3.680, p < .01, $η_{p}^{2}$ = 0.023; and openness to change general values, as well as creativity and aesthetic work values than Humanities & Art students. Also, they attached higher value to independence and aesthetic work values, but lower value to altruism than Health Science students. Compared with Business students, they rated less in security general values and aesthetic work values. Although they got highest score in way of life work values, no statistically significant difference was reported (Table 1 and Figure 3). Obviously, Hypothesis 3 should be rejected and the null hypothesis that Social Science students either have no significant difference or have lower scores in universalism, benevolence, achievement work values, variety, and altruism than non-Social-Science counterparts is accordingly accepted.

Figure 3.

Testing of Hypothesis 3 based on ANCOVA results.

Hypothesis 4

Humanities and Art students espoused general values higher in self-direction and openness to change, and creativity and aesthetic work values than non-Humanities-and-Art counterparts. Furthermore, they scored higher in variety and stimulation general values than Science & Engineering students, but lower in associates work values, and power and self-enhancement general values than Business students. Compared with Health Sciences students, they scored higher in variety but lower in altruism work values. Finally, they displayed higher values rating in stimulation than Social Sciences students. Although no significant difference was found, they scored highest in universalism, self-transcendence, and hedonism among the comparison groups. Similar to Business students, half of the general and work values (e.g., stimulation, self-direction, creativity, and aesthetic) could be predicted by Hypothesis 4 (Table 1 and Figure 4).

Figure 4.

Testing of Hypothesis 4 based on ANCOVA results.

Hypothesis 5

Science and Engineering students were reported to score lower in work values, such as creativity, aesthetic, and variety, and general values, including self-direction, stimulation, and openness to change, than Humanities & Art students. Business students got higher ratings in management and variety work values and self-enhancement general values, but lower ratings in aesthetic than Science & Engineering students, whereas Health Sciences students rated lower in creativity and aesthetic, but higher in altruism (Table 1 and Figure 5). By and large, Hypothesis 5 is rejected and the null hypothesis that Science & Engineering students have either no significant difference or lower ratings in security general values, economic returns, and associates work values than non-Science-and-Engineering counterparts is thus accepted.

Figure 5.

Testing of Hypothesis 5 based on ANCOVA results.

Discussion

The findings of the present study revealed that Business, as well as Humanities & Art, students scored half of their general and work values as predicted by the literature (both Hypotheses 2 and 4 being accepted). Unfortunately, only very limited work values of the Health Sciences and Social Sciences students matched with the findings of previous empirical studies. As for the Science and Engineering students, the results were unexpected leading to the rejection of Hypothesis 5. Despite merely two hypotheses being accepted, this is not to say that the suggestion of the close link between values and major of study is rejected. Instead, it is safe to conclude that the link merely gains partial support. Closer examination reveals that some other factors may play a role in affecting the results of the current study.

Bachelor of Business Administration program attracts students who plan to join commercial and business fields after graduation. Perhaps partly due to their personality traits or partly due to the socialization of the academic program, Business students tend to espouse values related to power, management, and achievement, security, and personal gains. The relative lower scores in altruism among business students is a logically sound phenomenon in spite of the lack of literature support as business students focus more on self-enhancement instead of self-transcendence values in accordance with Schwartz’s Theory of Human Values System. Hence, the findings of the present study added to the literature in this aspect instead of violating the prediction of the literature.

In Hong Kong, most students who have been studying Art stream in the secondary schools tend to choose Art or Humanities subjects as their majors in universities. Most of them are Artistic persons under Holland’s hexagonal typology. It means that they are creative, self-expressive, in need of stimulation and novelty, and in pursuit of beauty. The findings of the present study actually reflected the close association between these personality traits and the reported values, including higher scores on self-direction, stimulation, openness to change, creativity, aesthetic, and variety. Again, the findings of the present study contribute to the literature in this aspect.

As for Social Sciences, it is actually a very broad subject comprising a wide variety of academic programs, including social work, social policy and administration, sociology, and so on. The scope and orientation of these programs are quite different and attract different kinds of students. For examples, Social Work students, with a helping heart, prefer to provide direct contact and services to needy persons, whereas Social Policy students may view welfare from macro perspectives and may choose jobs not necessarily related to direct service. Hence, the diversity of respondents from a broad discipline may cancel out the effect of college majors on values leading to the limited support to Hypothesis 3. Despite, Social Sciences students, particularly Social Work students, tended to put higher emphasis on altruism (Wong & Yuen, 2013). Also, their focus on human relationships and services instead of beautiful work products or working conditions may explain their low scores in aesthetic work values. However, the reasons why they played down work values on security were unknown and in need of further examination in future study.

Health Science respondents in the present study were mainly Nursing students (comprising 71% of the total health science respondents). Perhaps viewing from their work environment in Hong Kong context may explain the findings of the present study. Medical professionals, including nurse, would like to help their patients and thus they scored altruism the highest compared with other groups in the present study. In Hong Kong, doctors dominate in the medical field and nurses work under the instruction of the physicians. Furthermore, nurses have to follow the protocol/ procedures laid down by their supervisors or the instructions from medical doctors strictly. Their practices and services should be practical and effective. Perhaps this may explain why they scored low on creativity, management, aesthetic, independence, and variety. However, they are expected to work in a team and their low score on associates are unexpected and need to further explore in future research.

Perhaps there may have vast difference in the status of Science and Engineering between Hong Kong and the West. Science research and engineering fields with promising and occupational outlook may attract high ability students who expect high return in their future career, especially in the United States. Unfortunately, manufacturing in Hong Kong is a sunset industry and the development of science and technology in commercial or industrial sectors had been lagging behind compared with other developed countries. Engineering programs may not be able to entice cream to enroll. Similarly, the Science graduates are expected to land a teaching job in secondary school and thus may not expect a high salary, leading to their scoring not particularly high on economic returns.

Taken together, the partial support to proposed hypotheses in the present study may reflect the possible different context between Hong Kong and the West as well as the need for improved research methodology instead of denying the close relationship between values and major of study. Future research should deal with the limitations of the present study, including the adoption of convenience sampling, inadequate sampling size, broad categorization of academic programs, and so on. It is suggested that representative sampling with larger sample size should be adopted so that individual academic program, such as social work, sociology, social policy, and administration, can be analyzed individually, instead of putting under a broad category of social sciences. Furthermore, other confounding factors, such as year of study, religion, and so on, can be incorporated into ANCOVA so as to gain a more comprehensive picture. Finally, the present study focused merely on the relationship between values and college majors. It should extend to the association between values and chosen occupations in the future study.

Conclusion

To conclude, in spite of a small effect size reported in nearly all one-way ANCOVA results, the acceptance of Hypotheses 2 and 4 in the current study provides partial support to the close connection between values and academic majors. Actually, the findings of the current study show that WVI and SVS-58 were able to characterize the five broad groups of college majors in Hong Kong—Business programs attract students who likely put emphasis on prestige, management, security, associates, independence aesthetic work values and general values, such as achievement, power, security, and so on. Humanities and art programs recruit students rating high in creativity, aesthetic, variety work values and general values, including self-direction, stimulation, and openness to change. Both social sciences and health science students are altruistic, whereas engineering and science students tend to score low on both variety and altruism. If values do closely connect with college major, career counseling practitioners should pay more attention to the roles of values in both assessment and intervention during career counseling practice. Both qualitative and quantitative methods should be developed to help clients assess, identify, crystalize, prioritize, clarify values, and make informed career decision-making. Empirical research is also called for verifying the applicability and effectiveness of the above-mentioned values-based assessment and counseling. In this way, the practice–research cycle will snowball its impacts in the long run.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shui-wai Wong

References

Ali

A. J.

Al-Kazemi

(2005). The Kuwaiti manager: Work values and orientations. Journal of Business Ethics, 60, 63–73.

Beutel

A. M.

Marini

M. M.

(1995). Gender and values. American Sociological Review, 60, 436–448.

Brown

(2002). The role of work and cultural values in occupational choice, satisfaction, and success: A theoretical statement. Journal of Counseling & Development, 80, 48–56.

Brown

Crace

R. K.

(1996). Values in life role choices and outcomes: A conceptual model. The Career Development Quarterly, 44, 211–223.

Busch-Heizmann

(2015). Supply-side explanations for occupational gender segregation: Adolescents’ work values and gender-(a)typical occupational aspirations. European Sociological Review, 31, 48–64. https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcu081

Chief Executive Policy Address. (2014). The 2014 policy address: Support the needy. Let youth flourish. Unleash Hong Kong’s potential. http://www.policyaddress.gov.hk/2014/eng/

Duffy

R. D.

Sedlacek

W. E.

(2007). The work values of first-year college students: Exploring group differences. The Career Development Quarterly, 55(4), 359–364.

Gilbert

G. R.

Burnett

Leartsurawat

(2010). The psychological work preferences of business students. Journal of Career Assessment, 18, 189–206.

Huntley

C. W.

Davis

(1983). Undergraduate study of value scores as predictors of occupation 25 years later. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 1148–1155.

10.

Jiménez-López

F. R.

Segura-Sánchez

San Pedro

E. M.

Lorente-Molina

M. T.

(2012). Profile of personal values for health sciences students. International Journal of Psychology & Psychological Therapy, 12, 415–426.

11.

Legislative Council Panel on Education, the HKSAR. (2019). Progress in the implementation of life planning education. Legislative Council Discussion Paper No. CB(4)810/18-19(05) dated 3 May 2019. https://www.legco.gov.hk/yr18-19/english/panels/ed/papers/ed20190503cb4-810-5-e.pdf

12.

Leung

S. A.

(2002). Career counseling in Hong Kong: Meeting the social challenges. The Career Development Quarterly, 50, 237–246.

13.

Lips

Lawson

(2009). Work values, gender, and expectations about work commitment and pay: Laying the groundwork for the “motherhood penalty”? Sex Roles, 61, 667–676.

14.

Luk

C. L.

Bond

M. H.

(1993). Personality variation and values endorsement in Chinese university students. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 429–437.

15.

Lyons

S. T.

Duxbury

L. E.

Higgins

C. A.

(2006). A comparison of the values and commitment of private sector, public sector employees. Public Administration Review, 66(4), 605–618.

16.

Maierhofer

N. I.

Kabanoff

Griffin

M. A.

(2002). The influence of values in organizations: Linking values and outcomes at multiple levels of analysis. In Cooper

C. L.

Robertson

I. T.

(Eds.), International review of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 217–263). John Wiley.

17.

Mitchell

Kimball

Thornton

Young-DeMarco

(2008). The reciprocal relationship between college major and values: Family, careers and society [Unpublished manuscript]. Department of Sociology and Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan. http://www-personal.umich.edu/~cmsm/index_files/values.pdf

18.

Morgan

Isaac

J. D.

Sansone

(2001). The role of interest in understanding the career choices of female and male college students. Sex Roles, 44, 295–320.

19.

Myyry

Helkama

(2001). University students’ value priorities and emotional empathy. Educational Psychology, 21(1), 25–40.

20.

Neuman

Pizam

Reichel

(1980). Values as determinants of motivation: Tourism and other career choices. Annals of Tourism Research, 11, 428–442.

21.

Neumann

(1983). A discriminant analysis of students’ work values: Differences between engineering and liberal arts. Journal of Experimental Education, 53, 41–46.

22.

Ondrack

D. A.

(1973). Emerging occupational values: A review and some findings. Academy of Management Journal, 16, 423–432.

23.

Ros

Schwartz

S. H.

Surkiss

(1999). Basic individual values, work values, and the meaning of work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 49–71.

24.

Rounds

J. B.

(1990). The comparative and combined utility of work value and interest data in career counselling with adults. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 37, 32–45.

25.

Schwartz

S. H.

(1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical and advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Zanna

M. P.

(Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–63). Academic Press.

26.

Schwartz

S. H.

Cieciuch

Vecchione

Davidov

Fischer

Beierlein

Ramos Verkasalo

Lonnqvist

Demirutku

J. E.

Dirilen-Gumus

Konty

O. M.

(2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393

27.

Schwartz

S. H.

Gila Melech

A. L.

Steven

B. M.

Vicki

(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, 519–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001

28.

Selmer

de Leon

(1996). Parent cultural control through organizational acculturation: HCN employees learning new work values in foreign business subsidiaries. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 557–572.

29.

Smithers

(1969). Occupational aspirations and expectations of engineering students on sandwich courses. British Journal of Industrial Relations, 7, 414–422.

30.

Suarez

Shanklin

C. W.

(2004). Evaluating career values of dietetic students. A model for other allied health professions. Journal of Allied Health, 33, 51–54.

31.

Super

D. E.

(1995). Values: Their nature, assessment, and practical use. In Super

D. E.

Sverko

(Eds.), Life roles, values, and careers: International findings of the work importance study (pp. 54–61). Jossey-Bass.

32.

Weisgram

E. S.

Bigler

R. S.

Liben

L. S.

(2010). Gender, values, and occupational interests among children, adolescents, and adults. Child Development, 81, 778–796.

33.

Wong

S. W.

(2014). Assessing general and work values among university students in Hong Kong. LAP LAMBERT Academic.

34.

Wong

S. W.

Yuen

(2013). General values and work values of social work students in Hong Kong. Hong Kong Journal of Social Work, 47, 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219246213000041

35.

Yim

Wong

S. W.

Yuen

(2015). The use of qualitative career assessment approaches in Hong Kong: Reflections from an Asian Confucian heritage cultural perspective. In McMahon

Watson

(Eds.), Career assessment: Qualitative approaches (pp. 239–246). Sense.

36.

Yuen

Chan

R. T. H.

Lee

B. S. F.

(2014). Guidance and counseling in Hong Kong secondary schools. Journal of Asia Pacific Counseling, 4, 1–10.

37.

Zytowski

D. G.

(2004). Work role, values. In Spielberger

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of applied psychology (Vol. 3, pp. 715–717). Academic Press.