Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D. Jan 12, 2014:

Dziękuję wszystkim za wartościową dyskusję i specjalnie mike23 za jego szczodrość.

Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D. Jan 9, 2014:

Let me also observe that disciplines such as psychology, sociology, economics, etc., strive for rigor comparable to that of mathematics and physics. But in areas where human psychology is a factor, such rigor may be elusive. So, word coinage such as the one here is a reflection of such striving for rigor. And let us not forget that such words are subject to changing fashion.

Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D. Jan 9, 2014:

Great discussion. You are too kind, mike23, as always. But let us also not forget the Asker, who just wanted to learn something about the meaning of these terms, regardless of linguistic proprieties. I think we accomplished this and more.

mike23 Jan 9, 2014:

Given the explanations such as the one below and the obvious linguistic clumsiness of both the original and translation, we would not probably transgress any law if we suggested sth more naturally sounding such as the rendition offered by MarcoJanus
---
Rokeach breaks down the values into terminal (or ends) values and instrumental (or means) values. The former refers to beliefs about desirable states of existence that are worth striving for (such as happiness or wisdom); the latter, attainment of desirable end states (such as behaving honestly or responsibly)

mike23 Jan 9, 2014:

But if the original author had two seperate nouns/concepts in mind while coining the terms then the hyphened version "means-values" would be preferable or one put in inverted commas such as "means" values for the avoidance of confusion
Hence, "means" values / means-values was rendered as wartości-środki

Well, it's all a bit confusing to me. You are right, both the original terms in English and the Polish translation quoted by me sound clumsy and unnatural or highly academic at best.

mike23 Jan 9, 2014:

@ Arkadiusz
I see your point about the use of plurals in the modifier position. Let me refer to the rule first:

In English we can put two or more nouns together. The first noun is used as an adjective to modify the last noun and is called a NOUN ADJUNCT. The first noun is almost always SINGULAR because it follows the rule for adjectives, which do not have plural forms in English.
http://tx.english-ch.com/teacher/chris/level-b/grammar-in-us...

However, noun ajuncts may be in plural. Noun adjuncts were traditionally mostly singular (e.g. "trouser press") except when there were lexical restrictions (e.g. "arms race"), but there is a recent trend towards more use of plural ones, especially in UK English. Many of these can also be and/or were originally interpreted and spelled as plural possessives (e.g. "chemicals' agency", "writers' conference", "Rangers' hockey game"), but they are now often written without the apostrophe, although this is criticised by some authorities.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noun_adjunct

btw The end justifies the means - cel uświęca środki. Perhaps both the original coiner of the term in English, and then the Polish translator had that in mind

mike23 Jan 9, 2014:

You are absolutely right about the definitions.
As far as the translation goes, I guess the original sin commited by the very first translator puts us in a catch-22 situation with the monster. Whether we like it or not, we must follow suit now

Frank Szmulowicz, Ph. D. Jan 9, 2014:

I can see that my answer comes only from one book and that the Polish word is as in mike23 answer. As translators, we must follow the accepted usage.
However, note the two definitions:
1) Wartości cele to pożądany stan emocjonalny, natomiast wartości środki to sposoby pozwalające na osiągnięcie tego stanu.
2) Wartości pośrednie - a więc takie, które prowadzą do celu - to przedmioty lub czynności, takie jak domy, samochody, inwestycje, komputery, podróże, małżeństwo, dzieci, seks, uprawianie sportów, jachty, wędkarstwo itp.
Wartości ostateczne -czyli takie, które są celem samym w sobie - to stany emocjonalne związane z wartościami pośrednimi. Przykładami wartości ostatecznych są: miłość, przyjemność, podniecenie, rozkosz, szczęście, poczucie bezpieczeństwa, wolność, ruch, przygoda, wewnętrzny spokój, sukces, zdrowie czy władza.

As you can see, there is very little difference between the DEFINITIONS behind "wartości cele" and "ostateczne wartości."

Let me offer that means values and ends values is a linguistic monstrosity and wartości-środki, wartości-cele is szkaradnym dziwolągiem. The translator of "Psychologia perswazji" chose not to follow suit.