Cite this article as:

Ryaguzova E. V., Chinchevich E. V. Value Profiles of Modern Students and Teachers at Universities: Consensus or Gap?. Izvestiya of Saratov University. Philosophy. Psychology. Pedagogy, 2020, vol. 20, iss. 3, pp. 315-321. DOI:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC-BY 4.0).

Value Profiles of Modern Students and Teachers at Universities: Consensus or Gap?

The article presents the results of the empirical study which serves the purpose to analyze and compare value profiles of modern university lecturers and students as the main subjects of educational process. To verify the assumption that there was no value gap between the representatives of the studied groups a research among 80 participants (60 students and 20 teachers) has been made. The “Portrait Questionnaire” by S. Schwartz was used as a diagnostic tool and the criterion Mann – Whitney was used to establish the significance of the differences. The similar configuration of the value profiles of lecturers and students’ value profiles has been found, which is characterized not by qualitative but by quantitative differences. Significant differences (p <0.01) in the priority of some values have been found, which are determined by the age and status-role characteristics of the representatives of the studied groups, as well as the specifics of the social situation of the development of modern students belonging to the Z generation. It is argued that the presence of differences in some types of value priorities cannot be interpreted as a value gap. It is stated that the consensus of motivational orientations – consistency of the basic values of “self-direction”, “benevolence”, “universalism”, “tradition”, “conformism” and higher-order values – “self-determination” and “conservation” indicates a common trend of lecturers and students to self-development, personal growth, reliance on reasonable traditions and security, it is the result of lecturers and students’ active interaction determined by mutual motivation and aimed at implementing a common agreed goal in the context of the educational process. 


1. Shtompka P. Sotsiologiya sotsial’nykh izmeneniy [Sociology of Social Change]. Moscow, Aspect-Press Publ., 1996. 416 p. (in Russian).

2. Leont’yev D. A. Value as an interdisciplinary concept: the experience of multidimensional reconstruction. Voprosy fi lo sofi i, 1996, no. 4, pp. 15–26 (in Russian).

3. Schwartz Sh., Bilsky W. Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1987, vol. 58, no. 5, pp. 550–562.

4. Shvarts Sh., Butenko T. P., Sedova D. S., Lipatova A. S. Theory of basic personal values: validation in Russia. Psikhologiya. Zhurnal Vysshey shkoly ekonomiki [Psychology. Journal of the Higher School of Economics], 2012, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 43–70 (in Russian).

5. Fedotova V. L. Values of Russians in the context of intergenerational relations. Perm University Herald. Philosophy. Psychology. Sociology, 2017, no. 1, pp. 78–86 (in Russian). DOI:

6. Soldatova G. U., Rasskazova E. I. “Digital gap” and intergenerational relations of parents and children. Psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Psychological Journal], 2016, vol. 37, no. 5, pp. 44–54 (in Russian).

7. Rikel’ A. M., Dorenskaya S. V. Socio-psychological model of values among different generations of modern Russian society. Rossiyskiy psikhologicheskiy zhurnal [Russian Psychological Journal], 2017, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 205–225 (in Russian). DOI:

8. Vartanova I. I. Psychological features of motivation and values in high school students of different sexes. Psikhologicheskaya nauka i obrazovaniye [Psychological Science and Education], 2017, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 63–70 (in Russian). DOI:

9. Soldatova G. U., Rasskazova E. I., Nestik T. A. Tsifrovoye pokoleniye Rossii: kompetentnost’ i bezopasnost’ [Digital generation of Russia: competence and security]. Moscow, Smysl Publ., 2018. 375 p. (in Russian).

10. Schwartz Sh., Bardi A. Value hierarchies across cultures: Taking a similarities perspective. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 2001, no. 32, pp. 268–290.

11. Soldatova G. U., Trifonova A. V. Multitasking: is it worth worrying. Deti v informatsionnom obshchestve [Children in the Information Society], 2018, no. 28, pp. 26–37 (in Russian).

12. Khukhlayev O. Ye., Chibisova M. Yu., Usubyan Sh. A. Perception and the attitudes towards European values among Russian bachelor students of a Moscow university. Psikhologo-pedagogicheskiye issledovaniya [Psychological Educational Studies], 2019, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 58–73 (in Russian).DOI:

13. Luk’yanchenko N. V., Dovydenko L. V., Alikin I. A. Values of success in introducing the generation Z student youth. Sotsial’naya psikhologiya i obshchestvo [Social Psychology and Society], 2019, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 82–94 (in Russian, аbstr. in Engl.).  DOI:

14. Polyakov S. D., Belozerova L. A., Vershinina V. V., Danilov S. V., Krivtsova N. S. “Clip thinking” among high school and university students: A research experience. Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta. Ser. 14. Psikhologiya [Moscow University Psychology Bulletin], 2019, no. 4, pp. 126–143 (in Russian). DOI:

15. Ershova R. V. Digital generation: between myth and reality. Filosofskiye nauki [Philosophical Sciences], 2019, vol. 62, no. 2, pp. 96–108 (in Russian). DOI:

одобрено к публикации
Short Text (PDF): 

Generator XML for DOAJ

Не определено в Выпуске поле Опубликована онлайн:publicationDate