A Mead Project source page

Originally published as:

E. N. Henderson. "The Empirical Determination of a Value Scale." Philosophical Review 23 (1914): 181-183.

Editors' notes

We have included this paper as the earliest example we have been able to locate of an attempt to apply the Cattell ranking procedures to the measurement of social value. Unfortunately this is only an abstract of the paper, although it was prepared by its author. We have not been able to locate a published version of the article.

Site Navigation

Project Inventory

The Empirical Determination of a Value Scale

E. N. Henderson

E. N. HENDERSON.

The purpose of this study is to try to find out by actually questioning many persons how much agreement there is among them as to the relative importance of certain values and also, if such agreement be found, what the order of their importance may be. To that end I have used a list of six values, which may, perhaps, be regarded as inclusive of the principal good things of life. They are health, property, sociability, intelligence, taste and morality. The persons who helped in the study were asked to comply with the following request:

"Arrange the following list of misfortunes in the order in which you would be least willing to incur them:"-- (I) To be chronically ill so as to be confined to the bed room; (2) To be dependent upon others for support; (3) To have no friendly relations with nor personal interest in others; (4) To be a person of defective mental power; (5) To lose all interest in the beautiful; (6) To lose conscience so that habitual thievery would cause no remorse.

It will be noted that personal qualities rather than the good things that can be gained and enjoyed through them have been selected, and that in each case the basis of comparison is what might be called the minimal standard amount of each value, or that the possession

( 182) of which is expected of every normal individual. These conditions, I think, favor simplicity in the study. The replies of 183 persons may be represented as follows:

Rating	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	Average Rating	Average Deviation
Morality	84	42	37	14	4	2	2.00	0.92
Intelligence	56	73	30	15	8	1	2.17	0.88
Sociability	27	25	50	48	26	7	3.23	1.12
Property	4	18	25	34	77	25	4.30	1.67
Health	11	11	21	33	25	82	4.61	1.34
Taste	1	14	20	39	42	67	4.68	1.11

Miss Catharine N. Platts, a student in the Summer Session at Columbia, obtained for me 120 responses. Her questions were similar to mine, except that the one regarding property was put in such a form that the idea of dependence on charity was not implied. Her question put the alternative as such poverty as to involve actual want. The result was that property dropped to the lowest place in the scale of values, The summary of her replies as is follows:

Rating	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	Average Rating	Average Deviation
Morality	53	30	27	7	3	0	1.90	0.87
Intelligence	30	42	23	20	3	2	2.40	0.99
Sociability	18	15	33	34	15	5	3.20	1.10
Health	19	21	18	16	29	17	3.50	1.51
Taste	0	9	9	31	25	46	4.90	1.23
Property	0	3	10	12	45	50	5.00	0.75

Summarizing the results of both tables, we have:

Rating	I	II	III	IV	V	VI	Average Rating	Average Deviation
Morality	137	72	64	21	7	2	1.99	0.89
Intelligence	86	115	53	35	11	3	2.27	0.92
Sociability	45	40	83	82	41	12	3.21	1.11
Health	30	32	39	49	54	99	4.19	1.60
Property	4	21	35	46	122	75	4.60	1.01
Taste	1	23	29	40	67	113	4.70	1.09

I conclude that there is considerable agreement in regard to these minimal standard values. Morality and intelligence are clearly at the top with a slight advantage in favor of the former. Sociability is quite as definitely in the third place. Health, property and taste are grouped closely together, with little advantage in favor of any one. If lack of property means dependence on charity, this value seems to come up to fourth place. Otherwise it drops back toward the bottom. Taste is at or near the bottom in any event. Health, as is shown by

( 183) the average deviation, is placed most variously, yet it is clearly a low value.

The results are in one sense partial, inasmuch as 283 of the 303 answers came from women. However, the summary of the 20 replies from the men gives exactly the same arrangement of the values as is found in the summary of replies collected by me.

It, of course, remains to be discovered whether the same arrangement will prevail for values above the minimal standard but at about the same relative level.

Notes

No notes

The original published version of this document is in the public domain. The Mead Project exercises no copyrights over the original text.

This page and related Mead Project pages constitute the personal web-site of Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward (retired), who is responsible for its content. Although the Mead Project continues to be presented through the generosity of Brock University, the contents of this page do not reflect the opinion of Brock University. Brock University is not responsible for its content.

Fair Use Statement:

Scholars are permitted to reproduce this material for personal use. Instructors are permitted to reproduce this material for educational use by their students.

Otherwise, no part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording or any information storage or retrieval system, for the purpose of profit or personal benefit, without written permission from the Mead Project. Permission is granted for inclusion of the electronic text of these pages, and their related images in any index that provides free access to its listed documents.

The Mead Project, c/o Dr. Lloyd Gordon Ward, 44 Charles Street West, Apt. 4501, Toronto Ontario Canada M4Y 1R8