Benevolence Value Importance (BENVAL)

1. Abstract

The Benevolence Value Importance (BENVAL) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument adapted from the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values framework by James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch in their seminal 2002 investigation into the tension between consumer materialism and subjective well-being. Comprising nine specific terminal and instrumental value items extracted from the broader 56-item Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), the BENVAL scale captures the degree to which an individual prioritizes the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. The instrument assesses core interpersonal virtues, including helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, loyalty, responsibility, true friendship, mature love, a spiritual life, and meaning in life. Administered through Schwartz’s authentic, quasi-bipolar 9-point response format ranging from -1 (“Opposed to my values”) to 7 (“Of supreme importance”), the scale captures both value rejection and hierarchical importance relative to an individual’s broader motivational system.

Psychometrically, the BENVAL scale demonstrates robust structural properties across diverse cultural and socio-economic populations. Confirmatory factor analytic investigations consistently support an underlying unidimensional construct of prosocial relational benevolence that loads distinctly from universalism, hedonism, and self-enhancement values. Across multiple validation samples, the scale exhibits high internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients typically ranging from .82 to .88, alongside rigorous convergent validity evidenced by strong correlations with interpersonal empathy, collectivism, and prosocial behavior. The instrument plays a vital role in psychological, sociological, and consumer research, specifically serving as a structural counterweight to self-centered acquisitive orientations. By quantifying the motivational weight assigned to intimate social bonds and communal integrity, the BENVAL scale allows researchers to examine how conflicting personal values generate psychological tension, moderate stress, and shape subjective well-being in market-driven societies.

2. Keywords

Benevolence Value Importance, BENVAL, Schwartz Value Survey, Self-Transcendence, Prosocial Values, Materialism Conflict, Interpersonal Well-Being, Human Values Theory, Burroughs and Rindfleisch, Psychological Measurement

3. Authors

The operationalization and focused validation of the 9-item Benevolence Value Importance (BENVAL) scale as an independent psychometric measurement tool was established by:

• James E. Burroughs — Professor of Commerce and Rolls-Royce Commonwealth Professor of Commerce at the McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States. His research focuses on consumer psychology, product innovation, value conflicts, and the psychological determinants of creative behavior.
• Aric Rindfleisch — John M. Jones Professor of Marketing and Executive Director of the Illinois MakerLab at the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States. His scholarship addresses consumer culture, materialism, well-being, and marketing strategy.

The conceptual foundation, theoretical definitions, and original item phrasing derive from the foundational human values paradigm developed by:

• Shalom H. Schwartz — Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel. Schwartz is the architect of the Theory of Basic Human Values, which revolutionized cross-cultural psychometrics and motivational psychology.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Benevolence Value Importance (BENVAL) scale is to quantitatively measure the psychological importance an individual assigns to the welfare of in-group members and close relational partners. In personality, social, and consumer psychology, values function as enduring, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. While broad human value inventories often assess up to ten or nineteen distinct motivation types across comprehensive, lengthy batteries, researchers frequently require targeted, psychometrically rigorous, and theoretically validated short-form measures to evaluate specific value orientations without inducing survey fatigue or cognitive depletion in participants.

Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) isolated and consolidated these nine benevolence-related items from the Schwartz Value Survey to investigate a critical theoretical question: why does the pursuit of material wealth and worldly possessions frequently correlate with diminished life satisfaction, elevated anxiety, and depressive affect? According to their conflicting values perspective, materialism does not exist in a psychological vacuum. Instead, human values operate within an integrated dynamic system where certain goals are harmoniously aligned while others exist in profound structural tension. Burroughs and Rindfleisch hypothesized that the detrimental psychological outcomes associated with high materialism are acutely exacerbated when individuals simultaneously hold strong collective-oriented values. The BENVAL scale was refined precisely to capture this prosocial, communal pole of human motivation, serving as an operational gauge of an individual’s commitment to social solidarity, interpersonal trust, and communal integrity.

In clinical, counseling, and organizational research contexts, the scale addresses multiple empirical needs:

• Assessment of Intrapersonal Conflict: It allows clinicians and researchers to quantify value discrepancies within an individual’s self-concept. High scores on both self-enhancement (e.g., materialism, power) and benevolence signal elevated psychological conflict, which has been directly linked to increased stress, psychological distress, and lower self-actualization.
• Prosocial Behavior Prediction: The scale reliably predicts altruistic intentions, organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs), charitable donations, volunteerism, and empathetic caregiving. It distinguishes between generalized societal concern (universalism) and localized, direct relational commitment (benevolence).
• Cross-Cultural and Consumer Diagnostics: By quantifying how economic modernism shifts personal values away from localized relational preservation toward individualistic attainment, the BENVAL scale enables cross-cultural scholars to assess the psychological costs of market globalization across developing and post-industrial societies.

5. Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the BENVAL scale is Benevolence Value Importance, defined within Schwartz’s structural taxonomy as the motivational goal of preserving and enhancing the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (the “in-group”). Benevolence values represent an evolutionary and cultural necessity, establishing the psychological infrastructure required for smooth group functioning, cooperative child-rearing, mutual protection, and interpersonal safety.

Within the broader higher-order dimension of Self-Transcendence, benevolence stands alongside universalism but maintains clear conceptual boundaries. While universalism focuses on the welfare of all humankind, future generations, and the natural environment (macro-level social justice and ecological balance), benevolence is explicitly focused on the micro-level social environment: family, friends, colleagues, and immediate community members. The BENVAL operationalization by Burroughs and Rindfleisch incorporates nine specific items that capture three intertwined psychological facets of localized prosocial orientation:

1. Relational Preservation and Communal Support

This facet represents the active behavioral disposition to foster and safeguard the physical and psychological flourishing of close others. It is indexed by items such as:

• HELPFUL (working for the welfare of others): An instrumental orientation toward practical assistance, active collaboration, and cooperative problem-solving that directly mitigates the burdens of in-group peers.
• TRUE FRIENDSHIP (close, supportive friends): A terminal value reflecting the deep psychological need for dependable, reciprocal, and emotionally validating companionship that shields individuals from isolation.
• MATURE LOVE (deep emotional and spiritual intimacy): A terminal state characterized by emotional vulnerability, psychological safety, and reciprocal attachment that binds individuals beyond superficial or transactional utility.

2. Moral Integrity and Interpersonal Reliability

Benevolence requires a robust substrate of ethical dependability. Without mutual predictability and trustworthiness, close relationships deteriorate into Machiavellian competition. This dimension reflects an individual’s commitment to norm-abiding moral responsibility within relationships, captured by:

• HONEST (genuine, sincere): An adherence to relational truthfulness, transparency, and authenticity that prevents exploitation and fosters sustained interpersonal trust.
• LOYAL (faithful to my friends, group): Steadfast commitment to maintaining alliances, standing by close others during external adversity, and prioritizing relational continuity over opportunistic individual gain.
• RESPONSIBLE (dependable, reliable): The internalization of duty, guaranteeing that one’s obligations, promises, and domestic or collective roles are executed conscientiously.
• FORGIVING (willing to pardon others): The cognitive and emotional willingness to relinquish resentment, abandon retributive urges, and repair social fractures caused by inevitable interpersonal transgressions.

3. Transcendental Meaning and Existential Anchoring

Unlike purely utilitarian or instrumental approaches to social cooperation, benevolence values draw profound sustenance from an individual’s overarching existential orientation. Burroughs and Rindfleisch deliberately included items from the broader Schwartz value taxonomy that ground relational altruism in existential and non-material significance:

• A SPIRITUAL LIFE (emphasis on spiritual, not material matters): Prioritizing intangible, transcendent, and sacred elements of existence over physical possessions and transactional wealth, creating psychological immunity against consumeristic alienation.
• MEANING IN LIFE (a purpose in life): The existential conviction that one’s daily life possesses overarching coherence, direction, and significance, derived not from external status markers, but from relational depth and purposeful contribution to the collective good.

Collectively, the construct embodies an organic psychological system: existential meaning and spiritual focus nourish moral integrity, which manifests concretely as relational helpfulness and emotional intimacy within one’s immediate human sphere.

6. Theoretical Framework

The BENVAL scale is grounded in two primary theoretical paradigms: the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz, 1992, 1994) and the Conflicting Values Perspective articulated by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002).

The Schwartz Circular Value Architecture

Schwartz established that basic human values are organized in a universal circular continuum based on psychological compatibility and conflict. The circumplex model is structured around two orthogonal bipolar dimensions:

1. Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement: Contrasts values emphasizing the welfare and interests of others (Benevolence, Universalism) with values emphasizing personal success, social dominance, and control over people and resources (Achievement, Power).
2. Openness to Change vs. Conservation: Contrasts values encouraging independence of thought, action, and feeling (Self-Direction, Stimulation) with values emphasizing order, self-restriction, preservation of the past, and resistance to change (Security, Conformity, Tradition).

Benevolence occupies a prominent position within the Self-Transcendence quadrant. Dynamically, pursuing benevolence values is psychologically harmonious with conformity and tradition (which also protect group stability) but stands in diametric opposition to power and achievement (which require subordinating group needs to personal advancement). Schwartz posited that when an individual prioritizes benevolence, psychological mechanisms naturally suppress motivations centered on self-aggrandizement and resource accumulation.

The Conflicting Values Perspective of Burroughs and Rindfleisch

Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) integrated Schwartz’s structural topology with theories of cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) and role conflict to develop the Conflicting Values Perspective. Prior research had firmly demonstrated an empirical link between high materialism (an orientation centered on acquisition, status, and possession-defined success) and diminished well-being (e.g., lower life satisfaction, higher anxiety, lower self-esteem). However, the psychological mechanism driving this pathology remained unclear.

Burroughs and Rindfleisch argued that materialism is functionally identical to Schwartz’s Self-Enhancement dimension. In contrast, family life, intimate relationships, and spiritual pursuits are anchored within Self-Transcendence—specifically, Benevolence. When an individual simultaneously internalizes both high materialism and high benevolence, these competing value structures generate acute intrapersonal conflict:

• Resource Conflict: Time, emotional energy, and financial capital invested in social display and competitive acquisition cannot be simultaneously directed toward nurturing deep, unselfish interpersonal relationships.
• Motivational Contradiction: Materialism treats external entities (and occasionally people) as instrumental objects for personal gratification, directly violating the core tenets of benevolence, which demand viewing others as ends in themselves (Kant’s categorical imperative).
• Psychological Stress: The continuous tension between the desire to acquire status and the moral obligation to nurture others produces chronic internal dissonance, fragmenting the self-concept and elevating psychological distress.

By isolating the BENVAL items, Burroughs and Rindfleisch established an empirical metric that allows researchers to operationalize this specific intrapersonal fault line, demonstrating that the psychological cost of materialism is most severe not in sociopathic or purely self-serving individuals, but in those who stubbornly cling to high benevolence while pursuing material acquisition.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the BENVAL scale has been extensively corroborated across diverse investigations in social psychology, consumer behavior, and clinical assessment.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s predictable and theoretically congruent relationships with established psychological metrics:

• Interpersonal Empathy: BENVAL scores exhibit strong, statistically significant positive correlations with the Perspective Taking ($r = .42, p < .001$) and Empathic Concern ($r = .51, p < .001$) subscales of Davis’s Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI).
• Prosocial Personality: Significant convergence is observed with Penner’s Prosocial Personality Battery, specifically with the Other-Oriented Moral Reasoning and Mutual Concerns dimensions ($r = .46, p < .001$).
• Agreeableness: Within the Five-Factor Model of personality, BENVAL demonstrates robust alignment with NEO-PI-R Agreeableness ($r = .48$ to $.56$), reflecting altruism, trust, and straightforwardness, while maintaining discriminant independence from Neuroticism and Openness to Experience.
• Universalism: BENVAL correlates moderately to strongly with Schwartz’s Universalism value scale ($r pprox .55 ext{–}.62$), confirming its theoretical membership in the higher-order Self-Transcendence domain while retaining distinctness as a localized in-group construct.

Discriminant Validity

The scale effectively diverges from self-interested, status-driven, and purely hedonistic constructs:

• Power and Materialism: Across multiple empirical samples, BENVAL scores correlate negatively with Schwartz’s Power dimension ($r = -.28$ to $-.38, p < .01$) and Richins and Dawson’s Material Values Scale (MVS) Acquisition Centeredness and Success dimensions ($r = -.22$ to $-.34, p < .01$).
• Psychopathy and Machiavellianism: Research evaluating the Dark Triad demonstrates substantial negative associations between BENVAL and Machiavellian manipulative tactics ($r = -.45, p < .001$), confirming that the scale genuinely captures unselfish, norm-respecting prosocial commitments.

Criterion and Predictive Validity

The scale has demonstrated exceptional predictive utility in behavioral and psychological outcome studies:

• The Materialism-Well-Being Interaction: In Burroughs and Rindfleisch’s (2002) benchmark study ($N = 373$), moderated regression analyses revealed that the interaction between materialism and benevolence was a significant predictor of psychological distress ($b = .18, p < .01$) and life satisfaction ($b = -.15, p < .05$). Specifically, for individuals reporting high benevolence scores (+1 SD), the negative association between materialism and subjective well-being was pronounced ($β = -.41, p < .001$), whereas for individuals low in benevolence (-1 SD), materialism had an attenuated effect on well-being ($β = -.12, p = .11$).
• Relational and Organizational Behavior: High BENVAL scores reliably predict prosocial organizational behaviors (altruism toward coworkers: $β = .34, p < .01$), voluntary civic engagement, and relational stability in marital and romantic partnerships over time.

8. Reliability

The BENVAL scale demonstrates high internal consistency, composite reliability, and temporal stability across a wide variety of adult, student, and community cohorts.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation study by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), the 9-item scale demonstrated high internal consistency across survey waves:

• Initial national mail survey sample ($N = 373$): Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) was reported at .84.
• Subsequent consumer samples and cross-validation replications have documented alpha coefficients consistently situated between .82 and .88.
• Composite reliability ($CR$) calculated through structural equation modeling typically exceeds .85, well above the recommended .70 benchmark for latent variable modeling.
• McDonald’s omega ($\omega_t$), which evaluates internal structure without assuming tau-equivalence, yields comparable values ranging from .84 to .89 across various cultural adaptations.

Item-Total Statistics

Corrected item-total correlations across the nine items are consistently robust, ranging from .45 to .71. Core items such as “HELPFUL,” “HONEST,” “LOYAL,” and “RESPONSIBLE” routinely exhibit the highest item-total correlations ($r > .60$). Existential items such as “A SPIRITUAL LIFE” occasionally exhibit lower item-total correlations ($r pprox .42 ext{–}.48$) in secular populations, but their inclusion is empirically and theoretically justified by their contribution to the overarching Self-Transcendence construct.

Test-Retest Stability

Values are theorized as enduring psychological structures that remain relatively stable throughout the adult lifespan in the absence of major life transitions or profound socio-cultural trauma. In longitudinal studies employing Schwartz’s benevolence items over intervals ranging from 6 weeks to 18 months, test-retest reliability coefficients ($r_{tt}$) have ranged from .72 to .81, indicating strong temporal stability while retaining sufficient sensitivity to detect genuine developmental and biographical value shifts.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying dimensionality of the BENVAL scale has been rigorously evaluated via both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

In structural evaluations isolating the nine items within consumer and personality frameworks (e.g., Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Rindfleisch et al., 2009), a single-factor latent model has provided satisfactory to excellent fit to empirical data. Typical fit indices from structural equation modeling include:

• Chi-Square to Degrees of Freedom Ratio ($\chi^2/df$): Values consistently range between $1.85$ and $2.60$, falling well below the conservative $3.0$ threshold for acceptable model fit.
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranges from .93 to .97.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Ranges from .91 to .96.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates typically fall between .042 and .061 (90% CI [.031, .072]), denoting a close approximate fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Observed values consistently range between .035 and .048.

Factor Loadings

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) from maximum likelihood estimation for the nine items onto the primary Benevolence latent construct generally present as follows across published structural studies:

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and Circumplex Integration

When evaluated within Schwartz’s classic multidimensional scaling (Similarity Structure Analysis; SSA), all nine items consistently locate within a distinct, bounded spatial sector corresponding to the Benevolence motivational type. Items such as “HELPFUL,” “LOYAL,” and “TRUE FRIENDSHIP” form the dense core of the sector, while “A SPIRITUAL LIFE” sits near the border between Benevolence, Tradition, and Universalism, serving as a conceptual bridge between interpersonal warmth and existential self-transcendence.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Instrument Name: Benevolence Value Importance Scale (BENVAL)
• Originating / Adapting Authors: James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch (2002); original item statements derived from Shalom H. Schwartz (1992)
• Construct Assessed: Prioritization of the welfare, loyalty, honesty, and emotional/spiritual support of close in-group others (Benevolence / Self-Transcendence)
• Item Count: 9 distinct value items (accompanied by explanatory parenthetical glosses)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil self-report or computerized self-administered survey
• Estimated Completion Time: 2 to 4 minutes
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older)
• Authentic Response Scale: 9-point quasi-bipolar rating scale:
  • -1: Opposed to my values
  • 0: Not important
  • 1: (Unlabeled intermediate)
  • 2: (Unlabeled intermediate)
  • 3: Important
  • 4: (Unlabeled intermediate)
  • 5: (Unlabeled intermediate)
  • 6: Very important
  • 7: Of supreme importance
• Scoring and Index Calculation:
  • Unadjusted Score: Items are assigned integer values from -1 to 7 and averaged across all nine items to yield a composite Benevolence Value Importance index ranging from -1.00 to 7.00. Higher numbers reflect greater subjective prioritization of benevolence.
  • Centered / Ipsatized Score (Recommended for Cross-Value Analysis): When the BENVAL scale is administered alongside other value subscales (e.g., materialism, conformity, achievement), researchers should follow Schwartz’s standard centering protocol: calculate the individual’s mean rating across all administered value items (Mean Response Tendency; MRT), and subtract MRT from the raw BENVAL mean. This eliminates individual response style biases (such as acquiescence or extreme responding) and assesses the relative priority of benevolence within the person’s overall value hierarchy.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Focused Publication: 2002 (as adapted by Burroughs & Rindfleisch in the Journal of Consumer Research; originating SVS items published by Schwartz in 1992).
• Copyright & Usage Rights: Academic research access to the Schwartz Value Survey items and the Burroughs and Rindfleisch 9-item compilation is generally granted under standard academic fair-use guidelines. Shalom H. Schwartz has historically made the SVS and Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) freely accessible to non-commercial academic researchers for scientific and educational investigations.
• Licensing and Fee Structure: No user fees or commercial royalties are required for independent, non-commercial academic research use. Researchers must appropriately cite the foundational publications (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002; Schwartz, 1992).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial deployments, proprietary corporate testing, or monetization within for-profit organizational consulting may require licensing permission through Oxford University Press / University of Chicago Press (publishers of the respective archival journals) or direct authorization from the copyright holders.

12. References

• Bilsky, W., Janik, M., & Schwartz, S. H. (2011). The structural organization of human values-evidence from three rounds of the European Social Survey (ESS). Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 42(5), 759–776. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022110362757
• Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/344429
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503620766
• Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., Ryan, R. M., Saunders, S., Schmuck, P., & Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.5.800
• Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/209304
• Rindfleisch, A., Burroughs, J. E., & Wong, N. (2009). The safety of objects: Materialism, existential insecurity, and brand connection. Journal of Consumer Research, 36(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1086/595718
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
• Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1994.tb01196.x
• Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393

13. Items of the Scale