Value Alignment — A New Approach to Romantic Relationships (Part 2)
My previous post is the first part of the introduction to my ideas about approaching romantic relationships by assessing value alignment…
My previous post is the first part of the introduction to my ideas about approaching romantic relationships by assessing value alignment. This post continues and deepens that analysis.
In Part 1, I drew the red line across the circular diagram you see above to distinguish between two opposing sets of values: Openness to Change & Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement & Conservation.
Do two people have to prioritize exactly the same values in order to experience deep alignment in their relationship? No, but the more similar two rankings of values are, the more alignment there will be. In particular, when people rank values on the same side of the red line drawn in the diagram above similarly, they are much more likely to feel compatibility. Similar feelings toward Openness to Change and Conservation are key to long-term relationship success. Self-Enhancement and Self-Transcendence are important as well, but both of those categories are ranked similarly among all people.
Prioritizing Values
Cross-cultural studies have been done to determine the order in which humans generally rank values across the globe. This provides a baseline for how different we are. I will refer to these cross-cultural rankings throughout the next section.
See the general rankings in order below, along with a reminder of what each value represents:
Benevolence — caring about the welfare of those with whom we have high-frequency micro relationships [ranked #1 as more important across all cultures studied]
Universalism — understanding, appreciating, and tolerating the welfare of all people and for nature itself; caring about the welfare of those with whom we do not necessarily have high-frequency relationships (macro relationships)
Self-direction — independence, free thought and actions, need for autonomy
Security — safety, stability of society, social order
Conformity — obedience, self-discipline, duty-driven, subordinating oneself for the success of the group
Hedonism — pleasure, self-indulgence, gratification for oneself
Achievement — demonstrating success according to societal standards, obtaining social approval, desire to be seen as competent
Tradition — respect and commitment to customs, solidifying group solidarity
Stimulation — excitement, challenge in life, novelty and variety of experiences
Power — beating the competition, social status and prestige, control and dominance over resources and possibly people [consistently ranked at the bottom across cultures]
Values to Consider in Romantic Relationships
When two people believe that directly opposing values are important, it can be a sign of relationship-damaging conflicts to come. In romantic relationships, in particular, opposing values to look out for are: self-direction & stimulation vs. security & conformity-tradition. Among people across the globe, security and conformity are ranked 4th and 5th, while self-direction and stimulation are ranked 3rd and 9th. Notice how self-direction is commonly ranked 3rd while security is commonly ranked 4th. These are two opposing values that are ranked similarly across cultures. This is dichotomous and these opposing values are the root of many conflicts in romantic relationships.
Self-direction & Stimulation vs. Security & Conformity-Tradition
Remember from Part 1 that the closer two values are to each other on the circular diagram (see above), the more similar their underlying motivation is. Conformity and tradition are on the same wedge because they are motivationally the same. The difference is that conformity deals more with micro relationships, while tradition’s focus is more on macro relationships.
Values that are directly across from each other on the circular diagram directly oppose each other.
This comes down to a comparison between Openness to Change and Conservation, two opposing categories of values. I believe that many relationship-damaging conflicts within romantic connections arise from misalignment in these categories.
Openness to Change is comprised of the values self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism. These three values combine to emphasize independence, willingness to make big changes in life, autonomy, pleasure-seeking, and meeting challenges in new ways.
Conservation consists of the values of security, conformity, and tradition. These three values combine to emphasize societal order, resistance to change, willingness to “take one for the team” (even at the expense of one’s own pleasure), and preservation of the status quo.
Using a monogamous romantic relationship as an example: If Person A ranks hedonism, stimulation, and self-direction (Openness to Change values) highly, they are likely to seek challenges and variety. They are also likely to have a low tolerance for relationships that do not prioritize personal pleasure. They desire life experiences where they are able to “go with the flow.” Society’s rules are often not important to Person A and they might disagree with the status quo or desire to disrupt social order. They are often seen as unconventional. Person A might be called selfish or flighty by people who rank Conservation values highly. Openness to Change people often reject many of society’s norms.
Person B, who is more centered on Conservation values, highly ranks security, conformity, and tradition. These people are much more duty-driven than Openness to Change folks. They do not necessarily prioritize their own personal happiness and pleasure because they are more willing to subordinate themselves to society’s expectations. In fact, for many of these people, fulfilling their expected roles and accomplishing the goals that society lauds brings them personal happiness and pleasure. Conservation people often revere social order and society’s norms.
Norms
I’ve mentioned norms a few times now and they are very important when it comes to value alignment so I want to introduce them briefly here to integrate them into the discussion.
According to Schwartz, norms are standards and rules that tell people and society how they should behave. An individual’s acceptance of norms can vary depending on how much a person agrees or disagrees that people should behave a certain way. The norms that people adopt and obey or reject are derived directly from the values they prioritize. Norms require that people behave a certain way and there are specific consequences if those norms are disregarded. Whether the consequences agree or conflict with one’s values is what determines acceptance or rejection of a particular norm.
While values are general and idealistic, norms are concrete and refer to specific acts. There are four types of norms.
Folkways: these are customs that people follow within society. They are often taught implicitly and are rarely discussed directly. Most people learn these by simply being an embedded part of society. Examples include: saying “bless you” when someone sneezes and covering your mouth when you yawn.
Mores: these are moral norms. They can be hard to identify because these most often also fit into the other categories of norms. If morality is involved, a norm is a more. They usually have a clear right and wrong. Examples include: stealing and talking about a friend behind their back.
Taboos: these are norms that often shock society if they find out one has broken them. Taboos are usually not talked about because they are too embarrassing and socially unacceptable. Examples include: adultery and kinks & fetishes.
Laws: these are cultural and social norms that are policed by the government. Breaking these norms results in punishment such as fines or jail time. These usually focus on violence against others, theft, and damage to property. Examples include: all crimes.
Now that we know what norms are, we can focus on two values: conformity vs. self-direction, which are almost directly across from each other on the circular diagram, meaning they are motivationally opposite and distinct. The more important conformity is to someone, the more likely they are to obey norms. The more important self-direction is to someone, the more likely they are to reject norms.
The norms that people hold dear, obey, or reject are inextricably tied to the values they prioritize. A person who ranks conformity and tradition highly will be much more likely to obey societal norms than one who ranks stimulation and hedonism. Rejection of social norms can be distressing for people who treasure and respect them. Someone who prioritizes universalism is much more likely to obey and protect norms that encourage people to care for the environment whereas a person who prioritizes power would be less concerned with such a norm.
Mores and taboos are of particular importance in close personal relationships. Differences in folkways can be assessed in early interactions and are often more tolerable, but mores and taboos must be discerned or discussed as a relationship progresses and the consequences of disagreement can be devastating to the relationship. When two people in a relationship obey and/or reject the same mores and taboos, they are much more likely to experience alignment. If one person obeys a taboo while another rejects it, this could be grounds for ending a relationship altogether. Some topics related to mores and taboos that should be discussed early in romantic relationships: abortion, kinks, fetishes, monogamy/non-monogamy, end of life treatment, vaccinations, political leanings, risk tolerance, and many more that will come up again in future posts here.
Here’s a fairly common scenario: You’ve been in a romantic relationship with someone for a few months. You’re dating in an effort to learn about each other and assess the possibility of sustaining a long-term relationship. Everything is going well and you really enjoy this person, but one day you have a conversation and find that the two of you disagree on a norm that is fundamental to you. If you watched the last season of “Love is Blind” on Netflix, you saw a situation like this unfold between Bartise and Nancy when they discussed their views about abortion.
Practical Suggestions
An inventory to catalog value priority already exists. It’s called the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). Another option is called the Portrait Values Questionnaire, also developed by Schwartz. (You can find an iteration of the assessment here.) These can be useful when it comes to assessing work relationship alignment. However, assessing values and norms in personal relationships is best done through questioning, conversation, and discussions.
The most important values to assess in romantic relationships are: self-direction vs. security and stimulation/hedonism vs. conformity/tradition. Prioritizing these pairs of values differently will result in relationship conflict. The other values are also important and can lead to relationship-damaging conflict as well, although the other values are often less divisive. It’s important to flesh out the nuances in the ways people prioritize these values, though, so a simple inventory that results in ranking lists will not be sufficient to determine romantic alignment. Romantic relationships are complex so thorough questioning and deep discussion are both needed to understand how someone’s values manifest in their relationship interactions.
What I am asserting in this two-part introduction to my Value Alignment theory is that assessing values early in a romantic connection will save you a lot of time, energy, and heartbreak. Values are not easy to evaluate, especially because people have a tendency to fear judgment from others. It’s good to discuss values indirectly because often, when people know that values are being assessed, they may be more concerned with others’ perceptions of them than with honesty. In other words, someone may say they rank benevolence and universalism highly because they think that’s the “right thing to do” or because they think the other person ranks these values higher, even if they don’t agree with that themselves.
Direct questioning and discussion about norms and values can be useful, but people are often either unaware of how they truly feel about something or they try to align themselves with a person they find desirable in an effort to prolong the relationship. Attraction and relationship “spark” can be difficult for many to find so Person A may unwittingly (or wittingly) answer questions in ways they believe Person B will appreciate.
People often reveal the norms they honor and reject in regular conversation. It’s important to pay attention to these important comments when they arise. Just as Person A might answer questions inauthentically in an effort to keep Person B in their life, Person B may overlook or underestimate misalignments when they show up if they feel the attraction and spark.
Recall that some of the functions of values in people’s lives is to define behaviors socially acceptable or not, justify one’s demands on others, and elicit desired behaviors from others. In other words, values define our expectations of other people. Values are more abstract expectations while norms are concrete behaviors we expect from others.
Suggestions of mores and taboos to discuss
This list is by no means complete nor exhaustive. There are hundreds more details to discuss with potential romantic loves, but these are a good start.
Feelings about marriage and monogamy
Drug use
Financial habits
Topics around sexual freedom, sex-positivity, kinks, fetishes, and desires (check out this NSFW inventory)
Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia
It might seem heavy to jump headfirst into these topics when a romantic connection is just beginning but why wait? Discovering someone’s convictions and determining how well they mesh with yours is the crux of cultivating sustainable romantic relationships. The best way to gain insight into someone’s value priorities is by discussing your thoughts about different societal norms, particularly the mores and taboos about which you feel strongly.
One’s value priorities will be revealed in conversations about norms. Once a misalignment is revealed, it’s up to the parties involved to decide if they want to continue exploring the connection. People can prioritize opposing values and still engage in a romantic relationship with each other. It really depends on how much conflict and compromise people are willing to tolerate. The key to sustainable romantic relationships is value alignment.
I’ll be back with more about this subject in future posts, concerning romantic relationships and I will use my Value Alignment ideas to make sense of other types of relationships as well. Please join me if you see merit in what I am presenting.