Asian Values Scale (AVS)

Abstract

The Asian Values Scale (AVS) is a foundational 36-item psychometric instrument developed by Bryan S. K. Kim, Donald R. Atkinson, and Peggy H. Yang (1999) to measure an individual’s adherence to traditional cultural values characteristic of Asian and Asian American populations. Designed to operationalize the construct of enculturation—the retention and maintenance of cultural heritage norms, worldviews, and belief systems—the AVS distinguishes value-based cultural retention from purely behavioral dimensions of acculturation (such as language usage, food preferences, or social network composition). The instrument evaluates six orthogonal yet conceptually interrelated dimensions: Collectivism, Conformity to Norms, Emotional Self-Control, Family Recognition Through Achievement, Filial Piety, and Humility. Responses are recorded on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Strongly disagree) to 7 (Strongly agree), with 15 reverse-scored items reflecting non-traditional, individualistic, or contemporary Western orientations. Across multiple validation studies, the AVS has demonstrated robust psychometric integrity, including adequate internal consistency reliability (full-scale Cronbach’s α ranging from .81 to .82; 2-week test-retest reliability of r = .83) and rigorous construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity. It reliably differentiates Asian American cohorts across generational tiers and effectively distinguishes Asian American respondents from European American reference groups. As a cornerstone measure in cross-cultural psychology, counseling psychology, and psychiatric epidemiology, the AVS provides clinicians and researchers with an empirically grounded assessment of the role cultural value adherence plays in clinical symptomatology, help-seeking behavior, psychological distress, and the therapeutic alliance.

Keywords

Asian Values Scale, AVS, Enculturation, Acculturation, Collectivism, Filial Piety, Emotional Self-Control, Cultural Values, Cross-Cultural Counseling, Psychometrics

Authors

The Asian Values Scale was developed through collaborative psychometric research conducted within the Department of Education at the University of California, Santa Barbara:

• Bryan S. K. Kim, Ph.D. — Professor of Psychology at the University of Hawai‘i at Hilo; an internationally recognized authority in cross-cultural psychology, multicultural counseling competence, immigrant mental health, and the conceptualization of acculturation and enculturation.
• Donald R. Atkinson, Ph.D. — Professor Emeritus of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the Gevirtz Graduate School of Education, University of California, Santa Barbara; a pioneering researcher who established foundational frameworks for counseling racial and ethnic minority populations.
• Peggy H. Yang, Ph.D. — Counseling psychologist and psychometric researcher whose work has focused on Asian American psychological well-being, identity development, and instrument validation.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Asian Values Scale is to provide an objective, reliable, and culturally valid measure of an individual’s endorsement of traditional Asian cultural values. Historically, cross-cultural and counseling psychology literature frequently conflated acculturation (acquisition of host cultural norms) and enculturation (maintenance of heritage cultural norms). Furthermore, early instruments heavily prioritized behavioral indices—such as generational status, English language proficiency, media consumption, and dietary habits—while largely neglecting the cognitive, moral, and philosophical value systems that guide decision-making, interpersonal conduct, and emotional functioning.

To address this empirical gap, Kim, Atkinson, and Yang (1999) designed the AVS to capture the deep-structure cognitive dimensions of Asian heritage culture. The scale fulfills multiple vital functions across empirical research and clinical practice:

• Psychotherapy and Mental Health Service Delivery: Adherence to traditional Asian values significantly moderates attitudes toward professional psychological help-seeking. Individuals who strongly endorse values such as emotional self-control and filial piety may perceive psychological distress as an internal failure or fear bringing shame upon their kinship network (loss of face), resulting in underutilization of clinical services or premature termination.
• Process-Outcome Research: In therapeutic settings, matching client value orientations with culturally responsive interventions directly influences the working alliance, client-perceived counselor credibility, and treatment outcome. Clinicians utilize the AVS to gauge client expectations regarding therapist directiveness, emotional expressiveness, and familial involvement in interventions.
• Multicultural and Developmental Assessment: The AVS allows researchers to examine within-group heterogeneity among Asian Americans. Rather than treating Asian Americans as a monolithic demographic, the AVS enables nuanced investigations into how specific cultural values interact with immigration trajectories, generational transitions, gender role socialization, and developmental outcomes such as identity formation and academic achievement.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the AVS represents a multidimensional constellation of traditional cultural values derived from historical, philosophical, and moral traditions characteristic of East, Southeast, and South Asian societies—primarily Confucianism, Taoism, and Buddhism. Although these regions encompass profound linguistic, religious, and socio-political diversity, cross-cultural scholars have identified core trans-Asian value orientations that govern interpersonal ethics and subjective self-definition. The AVS operationalizes these orientations through six distinct dimensions:

1. Collectivism

Collectivism reflects the fundamental prioritization of the group’s welfare, harmony, and goals over individual preferences, desires, and autonomy. Individuals endorsing this dimension perceive the self as deeply embedded within a primary in-group (such as the family or broader community). Interpersonal harmony is maintained by avoiding disruptive interpersonal conflicts, subjugating idiosyncratic impulses to group consensus, and recognizing that personal actions carry broad social ramifications for one’s collective unit.

2. Conformity to Norms

Conformity to Norms encapsulates the moral imperative to adhere strictly to socially sanctioned roles, family hierarchies, and established cultural expectations. In traditional Asian societies, social cohesion relies upon predictable behavioral patterns aligned with one’s ascribed status (e.g., age, birth order, gender). High conformity entails deep respect for precedent, reluctance to challenge authority figures or established institutions, and an active commitment to preserving collective order by avoiding social deviance.

3. Emotional Self-Control

Emotional Self-Control denotes the discipline and ability to regulate, suppress, or moderate the overt behavioral expression of strong emotions—particularly negative affects such as anger, distress, frustration, or public displays of affection. Grounded in Buddhist and Taoist ideals of stoicism, emotional balance, and the preservation of relational tranquility, emotional restraint is viewed as a sign of inner strength and maturity, whereas emotional volatility is seen as an imposition on others that threatens social cohesion.

4. Family Recognition Through Achievement

This construct captures the belief that individual educational, vocational, and moral accomplishments are not individualistic trophies, but communal achievements that elevate the social standing, prestige, and honor of the entire family. Conversely, occupational or educational failure is conceptualized as a profound failure that brings collective disgrace, shame, and loss of face to the kinship network and one’s ancestors.

5. Filial Piety

Rooted directly in Confucian ethics (xiao), Filial Piety involves the unquestioned obligation, devotion, respect, and duty of care that children owe their parents and forebears. This construct manifests in honoring parental wishes, deferring to the wisdom of elders, prioritizing parental welfare above personal convenience, and providing comprehensive physical, financial, and emotional care for aging parents without delegating these sacred duties to institutional facilities.

6. Humility

Humility emphasizes modesty, self-effacement, and the deliberate discouragement of boastfulness, ostentation, or calling attention to one’s personal merits. Endorsing humility requires individuals to downplay their successes, attribute accomplishments to the guidance of elders, teachers, or collective effort, and maintain an unassuming interpersonal posture that fosters relational equality and prevents envy.

Theoretical Framework

The Asian Values Scale is theoretically situated within the intersection of cross-cultural psychology, cultural anthropology, and acculturation theory. Its conceptual foundation builds upon three primary paradigms:

The Bidimensional Model of Acculturation and Enculturation

Historically, early assimilationist paradigms (e.g., Gordon, 1964) framed acculturation as a unidimensional, zero-sum continuum wherein the acquisition of dominant cultural practices inevitably produced the erosion and eventual extinction of heritage cultural orientations. In contrast, the theoretical architecture of the AVS draws directly upon the orthogonal, bidimensional model of acculturation advanced by John W. Berry (1997). Berry posited that an individual’s relationship to their culture of origin (enculturation) and their relationship to the receiving dominant society (acculturation) operate as independent, functionally distinct cognitive domains. Thus, a high degree of Western behavioral adaptation does not preclude deep cognitive and moral commitment to traditional Asian values. The AVS was constructed specifically to assess this enculturative axis.

Independent vs. Interdependent Self-Construal

The scale relies extensively on the seminal socio-cognitive framework articulated by Hazel Rose Markus and Shinobu Kitayama (1991) regarding the cultural construction of the self. Markus and Kitayama contrasted the Western independent self-construal—defined as a bounded, autonomous entity striving for personal uniqueness, rights, and self-actualization—with the Asian interdependent self-construal. In the interdependent model, the person is understood as intrinsically connected to others, contextualized within social relationships, and defined through role obligations. The six dimensions of the AVS operationalize the normative prescriptions of the interdependent self, codifying the social practices and ethical mandates necessary to sustain relational harmony, collective face, and mutual interdependence.

Confucian Relational Ethics and Moral Philosophy

The normative content of the AVS is anchored in classical Eastern philosophy, most notably the ethical system of Confucius (551–479 BCE). Confucian moral development organizes society around five cardinal human relationships (wu lun), emphasizing hierarchy, mutual obligation, filial devotion, and righteousness. Societal balance is achieved when individuals fulfill their designated societal and familial roles with diligence and modesty. The AVS directly integrates these foundational philosophical constructs into modern psychometric indicators, allowing empirical inquiry into how ancient moral frameworks persist in contemporary, pluralistic societies.

Validity

The Asian Values Scale has undergone extensive empirical evaluation to establish its construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across varied clinical and non-clinical samples.

Construct and Known-Groups Validity

In the seminal scale development investigation by Kim et al. (1999), construct validity was evaluated using a known-groups design comparing Asian American and European American college students. As theoretically hypothesized, Asian American participants exhibited significantly higher total AVS scores than their European American peers (t(259) = 8.79, p < .001), demonstrating the scale’s ability to differentiate individuals based on cultural heritage. Furthermore, among Asian Americans, the AVS demonstrated strong generational sensitivity: first-generation immigrants scored significantly higher on adherence to Asian values than second-, third-, and subsequent-generation Asian Americans, aligning with established socio-cultural assimilation patterns.

Convergent and Divergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating the AVS with the Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale (SL-ASIA; Suinn et al., 1987, 1992). The AVS demonstrated a statistically significant negative correlation with the SL-ASIA (r = -.36, p < .001). Because higher scores on the SL-ASIA signify higher behavioral acculturation into Western society, this moderate negative relationship confirmed that individuals who are more behaviorally assimilated tend to endorse traditional Asian values to a lesser extent, while simultaneously confirming that values retention and behavioral acculturation are distinct, non-redundant constructs.

Discriminant validity was established by examining associations with instruments measuring unrelated constructs, including the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). The AVS demonstrated non-significant or negligible correlations with social desirability (r = .06 to .11, ns), indicating that participant responses are not artifacts of impression management or social approval bias. Furthermore, baseline self-esteem did not confound total values adherence scores.

Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

Subsequent psychometric investigations have established the scale’s robust predictive validity across clinical and organizational domains. Higher adherence to Asian values, as measured by the AVS, consistently predicts:

• More negative or hesitant attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help (Kim & Omizo, 2003).
• A heightened preference for structured, directive, and problem-focused counseling approaches over unstructured, emotionally expressive, or psychoanalytic interventions (Kim, Li, & Liang, 2002).
• Increased utilization of somatic idioms of distress rather than explicit psychological self-disclosure during clinical intakes (Kim et al., 2005).
• Perception of higher counselor credibility and cultural empathy when therapists overtly acknowledge and integrate traditional family obligations into treatment planning.

Reliability

The psychometric properties of the AVS have been documented across diverse Asian American subpopulations, including Chinese, Korean, Japanese, Filipino, Vietnamese, and South Asian cohorts.

Internal Consistency Reliability

During initial instrument development and validation across multiple university samples, Kim, Atkinson, and Yang (1999) reported a full-scale Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of α = .81 for Sample 1 (N = 177) and α = .82 for Sample 2 (N = 84). Subsequent large-scale investigations across community and undergraduate cohorts have reported full-scale internal consistency coefficients consistently ranging between .80 and .84.

Given that the AVS was originally calibrated as an omnibus measure of multidimensional values adherence, the internal consistency values for the six individual subscales are naturally more modest due to the shorter item lengths per dimension:

• Collectivism: α = .61 to .67
• Conformity to Norms: α = .60 to .66
• Emotional Self-Control: α = .62 to .71
• Family Recognition Through Achievement: α = .64 to .73
• Filial Piety: α = .60 to .68
• Humility: α = .60 to .65

Researchers frequently utilize the total composite score when high internal reliability is paramount for multivariate modeling, while employing subscale profiles to examine granular value discrepancies within specific clinical and developmental investigations.

Temporal Stability

The stability of the instrument over time was demonstrated through test-retest administration over a 2-week interval with a non-clinical sample of Asian American participants (Kim et al., 1999). The resulting test-retest reliability coefficient was r = .83 (p < .001). This confirms that the AVS captures enduring, trait-like cognitive-cultural schemas rather than fluctuating state-dependent affective states.

Factor Analysis

The structural development of the AVS utilized both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across independent cohorts.

Initial Scale Construction and EFA

The instrument’s development began with an exhaustive qualitative review of sociological, anthropological, and psychological literature, supplemented by focus group discussions with Asian American community members and cross-cultural clinicians. An initial pool of 112 candidate items reflecting traditional Asian values was generated. This pool was administered to 177 Asian American university students.

The data were subjected to exploratory principal-axis factor analysis. Factor retention decisions were guided by Kaiser’s eigenvalue-greater-than-1.0 criterion, Cattell’s scree test inspection, and theoretical interpretability. Both orthogonal (varimax) and oblique (promax) rotations were examined. The scree test indicated a distinct break after the sixth factor. Items were systematically evaluated and retained if they met rigorous psychometric criteria: a primary factor loading of ≥ .35 and no secondary cross-loading ≥ .25. Items failing to meet these thresholds or exhibiting conceptual ambiguity were deleted. This empirical purification distilled the instrument down to 36 robust items across six well-defined factors, accounting for approximately 35.7% of the total variance.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Structural Models

Subsequent psychometric examinations (e.g., Kim, Li, & Ng, 2005) tested the structural validity of the 36-item AVS using structural equation modeling. CFA evaluations tested competing models: a unidimensional model, an uncorrelated orthogonal six-factor model, and a correlated first-order six-factor model. The correlated six-factor model demonstrated superior empirical fit compared to alternative formulations across diverse Asian ethnic groups:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .90 to .92
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .055 (90% CI [.043, .059])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .052 to .058
• χ²/df ratio: < 2.0

These findings substantiate the multidimensionality of the AVS, showing that while the six subscales share common variance indicative of a broader traditional worldview, they represent distinct psychological domains.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Asian Values Scale (AVS)
• Developer(s): Bryan S. K. Kim, Ph.D., Donald R. Atkinson, Ph.D., and Peggy H. Yang, Ph.D. (1999)
• Construct Measured: Adherence to traditional Asian cultural values (enculturation) across cognitive, relational, and behavioral expectations.
• Test Type: Multidimensional self-report rating scale.
• Target Population: Adolescents, college students, and adults of Asian heritage (East Asian, Southeast Asian, South Asian) as well as comparative intercultural groups.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital self-assessment.
• Completion Time: Approximately 8 to 12 minutes.
• Total Number of Items: 36 items.
• Response Scale: 7-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly disagree
  • 2 = Moderately disagree
  • 3 = Mildly disagree
  • 4 = Neither agree nor disagree
  • 5 = Mildly agree
  • 6 = Moderately agree
  • 7 = Strongly agree
• Reverse-Scored Items: Items 1, 4, 9, 12, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 30, 32, and 34 represent non-traditional or Western-oriented cultural positions and must be reversed prior to computing scale scores (i.e., 1 → 7, 2 → 6, 3 → 5, 4 → 4, 5 → 3, 6 → 2, 7 → 1).
• Scoring and Interpretation:
  • Full-Scale Score: Computed by summing all 36 items (after reversing negative items) and calculating the mean (range: 1.00 to 7.00). Higher scores denote stronger adherence to traditional Asian cultural values.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by taking the mean of the items comprising each of the six dimensions (Collectivism, Conformity to Norms, Emotional Self-Control, Family Recognition Through Achievement, Filial Piety, and Humility).

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Asian Values Scale was published in 1999 by the American Psychological Association (APA). The full scale and initial psychometric validation appeared in the Journal of Counseling Psychology (Vol. 46, No. 3, pp. 342–352). The copyright is held by the American Psychological Association and the primary scale developers.

For academic, non-commercial, clinical, and scholarly research purposes, the authors generally make the instrument accessible. Formal permission to administer, reproduce, or adapt the Asian Values Scale in empirical studies or clinical settings must be obtained directly from the primary author:

• Contact: Bryan S. K. Kim, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, University of Hawai‘i at Hilo, 200 W. K&amacron;wili Street, Hilo, HI 96720-4091. Email: [email protected].
• Commercial Use: Any commercial distribution, inclusion in commercial software packages, or proprietary training programs requires formal licensing authorization through the APA Rights & Permissions office (APA Permissions).

References

• Atkinson, D. R., Morten, G., & Sue, D. W. (1998). Counseling American minorities (5th ed.). McGraw-Hill.
• Berry, J. W. (1997). Immigration, acculturation, and adaptation. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 46(1), 5–34. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1464-0597.1997.tb01087.x
• Kim, B. S. K., Atkinson, D. R., & Yang, P. H. (1999). The Asian Values Scale: Development, factor analysis, validation, and reliability. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 46(3), 342–352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.46.3.342
• Kim, B. S. K., Li, L. C., & Liang, T. H. (2002). Effects of Asian American client adherence to Asian cultural values, session goal, and counselor emphasis of client expression on career counseling process. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 49(3), 342–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.49.3.342
• Kim, B. S. K., Li, L. C., & Ng, G. F. (2005). The Asian American Values Scale–Multidimensional: Development, reliability, and validity. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 11(3), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.11.3.187
• Kim, B. S. K., & Omizo, M. M. (2003). Asian cultural values, attitudes toward seeking professional psychological help, and willingness to see a counselor. The Counseling Psychologist, 31(3), 343–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000003031003008
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
• Suinn, R. M., Ahuna, C., & Khoo, G. (1992). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: Concurrent and factorial validation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 1041–1046. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164492052004028
• Suinn, R. M., Rickard-Figueroa, K., Lew, S., & Vigil, P. (1987). The Suinn-Lew Asian Self-Identity Acculturation Scale: An initial acculturation measure for Asian-Americans. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 47(2), 401–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164487472016

Items of the Scale