rx 
confirms that Leadership and Conformity are here the interpersonal values of importance to 
societal attitudes towards the institution of private property. 
Table 3 also shows analyses of the data at the individual level, based on pooled random 
samples of 80 respondents from each of the 15 societies. The random samples were limited to 
80 cases because that was the upper limit allowed by the Ceylonese and White South African 
samples. These same random samples of 80 cases were used in the subsequent multivariate 
analyses. As shown in Table 3, when the data oto analyzed at the individual level, the major 
findings of the societal level of analysis are maintained. Leadership remains correlated with 
both PQ1 (n=1200, r=.12, p<.001) and PQ2 (n=1200, r =.11, p<.001), as does Conformity with 
PQ2 (n=1200, r=-.11, p<.001). Surprisingly, at the individual ievel of analysis, preference for 
Benevolence was negatively correlated with PQ1 (n=1200, r=-.16, p<.001) and with PQ2 
{n=1200, r=-,10, p<.001). 
The strong relationships between property attitudes and values of Leadership and 
Conformity across societies were not uniformly evident within societies. Noting statistically 
significant correlations (p <.05) in the opposite directions from those shown in Table 3, 
Leadership and PQ1 were not positively correlated for Brazilians (n=124, r =-.15, p =.04). 
Conformity and PQ2 were not negatively correlated for Brazilians (n=124, r=.24, p =.003), 
Canadians (n =200, r=.17, p =.009), Danes (n =269, r=.24, p <.001), Dutch (n=842, r=.18, 
p<.001), Swedes (n=176, r=.22, p=.001) or U. S. citizens (n=526, r=.14, p>.001). However, the 
distributions of within-society correlations of Leadership and Conformity measures with 
property measures may not be random. An examination of societal measures of interpersonal 
values as predictors of within-society correlations of Leadership and Conformity with PQ1 and 
PQ2 respectively, suggests the possibility that the within-soclety correlations are modulated by 
the degree of societal preference for Independence. 
Figures 3 and 4 display the relationships of societal preference for Independence to 
within-society correlations of Leadership and Conformity to private property attitudes based on 
random samples of 80 respondents from each society. Figure 3 shows that median societal 
preference for Independence is positively correlated with a positive relationship between 
favoring Leadership and favoring private property (n=15, r=.62, p=.01). Thus, the strong 
positive relationship of Leadership and property evident across societies is increasingly 
characteristic of people within societies the more they favor personal Independence. Figure 4