List of Values (LOV)

1. Abstract

The List of Values (LOV) is a seminal psychometric instrument developed by social psychologist Lynn R. Kahle in 1983 to assess core personal values that guide human behavior, daily adaptation, and consumer decision-making. Emerging from social adaptation theory and drawing conceptually from Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Milton Rokeach’s value paradigms, the instrument comprises nine foundational terminal values: Sense of belonging, Excitement, Warm relationships with others, Self-fulfillment, Being well-respected, Fun and enjoyment in life, Security, Self-respect, and A sense of accomplishment. Psychometrically validated on an initial probability sample of 2,264 American adults through the Survey Research Center at the University of Michigan, the LOV was engineered to overcome the structural fatigue and cognitive burden associated with lengthy inventories like the 36-item Rokeach Value Survey (RVS).

The instrument utilizes two primary administration modalities: a direct ipsative ranking method (from 1 = most important to 9 = least important) and a 9-point interval rating scale (1 = Very unimportant to 9 = Very important), frequently paired with a final forced-choice item identifying the respondent’s single most critical guiding value. Factor analytic investigations robustly demonstrate a stable three-dimensional latent structure across diverse demographic and cultural cohorts: Internal Individual Values (capturing self-direction, achievement, and personal growth), External Values (representing status, security, and social acceptance), and Interpersonal / Hedonic Values (encompassing relational closeness and affective gratification). Decennial longitudinal evaluations indicate high ranking stability (Spearman rho = 0.83), while structural equation modeling confirms its superior predictive validity over broader sociological taxonomies in anticipating consumer choice, lifestyle segmentation, affective well-being, and psychological adaptation to societal shifts.

2. Keywords

List of Values, LOV, Lynn R. Kahle, psychometrics, personal values, social adaptation theory, consumer behavior, market segmentation, internal values, external values

3. Authors

The List of Values was developed by Lynn R. Kahle, Ph.D., an eminent scholar in behavioral psychology, marketing, and consumer psychology. At the time of the instrument’s initial empirical validation and dissemination, Dr. Kahle conducted research in conjunction with the Survey Research Center at the Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States). He subsequently joined the faculty at the Lundquist College of Business, University of Oregon (Eugene, Oregon, United States), serving as the Ehrman Giustina Professor of Marketing and head of the Department of Marketing, and later affiliated with Pace University.

Dr. Kahle’s pioneering scholarship bridges experimental social psychology, cognitive psychology, and empirical marketing science. His landmark 1983 monograph, Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America, formalized the theoretical, mathematical, and psychometric foundations of the LOV, establishing it as an international benchmark for cross-sectional values research.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the List of Values is to provide a parsimonious, psychometrically rigorous, and theoretically robust measure of an individual’s core value system, specifically focusing on those terminal values centrally engaged in everyday human life, psychosocial adaptation, and consumption choices. Prior to the introduction of the LOV, the measurement of human values in social science was heavily dominated by the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS; Milton Rokeach, 1973), which required respondents to rank two distinct sets of 18 values (terminal and instrumental). Psychologists and behavioral researchers encountered severe methodological constraints with this paradigm, including extreme respondent cognitive fatigue, elevated refusal rates among less-educated demographics, statistical dependencies inherent to strict ipsative rankings, and an overabundance of abstract philosophical constructs (such as “a world of beauty” or “salvation”) that exhibited negligible empirical power in predicting real-world, everyday behavioral outcomes.

To resolve these operational barriers, Kahle isolated the subset of terminal values from the RVS and related sociological frameworks that directly mapped onto social adaptation theory and psychological need fulfillment. The clinical and research applications of the LOV span multiple empirical domains:

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing Science: The LOV is widely utilized to map the cognitive hierarchies linking product attributes, consequences, and personal terminal values (the means-end chain model). It provides a robust basis for psychographic segmentation, product positioning, communication strategy, and brand resonance modeling.
• Psychosocial Well-Being and Mental Health Research: Clinical and community psychologists employ the LOV to analyze the alignment between personal values and psychological adaptation. Prioritizing internal values (such as self-respect and accomplishment) is systematically linked to higher self-esteem, internal locus of control, and lower depressive symptomatology, whereas disproportionate reliance on external values (such as security and external respect) frequently associates with social anxiety and externalized vulnerability.
• Sociological and Cross-Cultural Inquiries: The instrument facilitates the longitudinal monitoring of macro-level value shifts across generational cohorts, tracking how macro-economic changes, political transformations, and globalization influence fundamental existential and interpersonal priorities.
• Organizational Behavior: The scale serves as an efficient diagnostic for assessing person-organization fit (P-O fit), occupational culture congruence, leadership styles, and employee motivation.

5. Psychological Construct

Human values represent enduring, abstract beliefs about desirable end-states or modes of conduct that transcend specific situations, guide the selection or evaluation of behavior, and are ordered by relative importance. The List of Values operationalizes nine discrete terminal values, which aggregate into three well-defined higher-order psychological dimensions reflecting distinct motivational orientations:

1. Internal Individual Values

This psychological dimension captures an internal locus of control, personal agency, self-direction, intellectual or physical stimulation, and self-actualization. Individuals who elevate this dimension view value fulfillment as emanating directly from their own efforts and autonomous internal standards rather than from societal validation. The subscale comprises:

• Self-fulfillment: The aspiration to realize one’s full latent potential, pursue continuous personal growth, and attain deep existential satisfaction through meaningful self-expression.
• A sense of accomplishment: The motivation to achieve mastery, complete significant personal or professional goals, and experience tangible competence and efficacy.
• Self-respect: The profound psychological appraisal of one’s intrinsic worth, integrity, moral consistency, and self-regard.
• Excitement: The pursuit of stimulating, novel, emotionally invigorating, and challenging experiences that disrupt routine and provoke sensory or intellectual engagement.

2. External Values

The external dimension reflects an interpersonal or environmental locus of control, wherein psychological equilibrium, safety, and self-definition depend upon the responses, actions, and approvals of the external social environment. Individuals endorsing external values tend to adapt defensively or conformistly to external contingencies. The subscale comprises:

• Security: The fundamental drive for physical, economic, and emotional safety, protection from life disruptions, vulnerability reduction, and existential stability.
• Sense of belonging: The need to feel accepted, incorporated, valued, and integrated into a broader peer group, family, community, or demographic cohort.
• Being well-respected: The desire to receive social recognition, status, deference, esteem, and positive evaluation from external observers and institutional authorities.

3. Interpersonal / Hedonic Values (Internal Interpersonal)

This dimension occupies an integrative psychological space combining relational connectivity with intrinsic affective gratification. Unlike purely individualistic self-enhancement or defensive social conformity, this domain addresses collaborative human connection and experiential joy:

• Warm relationships with others: The cultivation of deep, reciprocal, intimate, affectionate, and empathetic connections with friends, romantic partners, and family members.
• Fun and enjoyment in life: The uninhibited pursuit of pleasure, hedonistic satisfaction, humor, relaxation, and leisure gratification.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual foundation of the List of Values is firmly anchored in Social Adaptation Theory, developed by Lynn R. Kahle (1983, 1984). Social adaptation theory conceptualizes values as a specialized class of social cognitions that function as ultimate psychological criteria for adapting to environmental challenges, interpersonal requirements, and existential transitions. According to this framework, individuals actively construct and continuously calibrate cognitive representations of their life goals to optimize person-environment fit.

Social adaptation theory posits that human beings constantly process incoming environmental information against internal cognitive schemas. When faced with environmental pressures, behavioral opportunities, or cultural expectations, an individual’s value hierarchy directs the allocation of finite attentional, emotional, and behavioral resources. Values serve as high-level abstract summaries of behavioral strategies that have historically fostered positive outcomes or mitigated adverse consequences.

Kahle synthesized elements from several foundational paradigms in psychology:

• Cognitive-Developmental and Functionalist Traditions: Drawing upon Jean Piaget’s concepts of assimilation and accommodation, Kahle posited that values are adaptive cognitive structures. An individual assimilates novel situations into their existing value architecture, or accommodates their hierarchy when chronic environmental realities demand psychological recalibration.
• Maslow’s Motivational Hierarchy: The nine values explicitly map onto Abraham Maslow’s continuum of human motivation. Security directly operationalizes physiological and safety needs; Sense of belonging and Warm relationships with others mirror social affiliation needs; Self-respect and Being well-respected reflect the bifurcated lower (reputation) and higher (self-worth) esteem tiers; while Self-fulfillment and Sense of accomplishment epitomize self-actualization.
• Rokeach’s Cognitive Algebra: The LOV accepts Milton Rokeach’s thesis that values occupy a central, sovereign position within the human cognitive system, exerting a deterministic hierarchy over attitudes, which subsequently guide behavioral choices. This is formally known in structural equation modeling as the Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) Hierarchy (Homer & Kahle, 1988).

7. Validity

Extensive empirical investigations across more than four decades substantiate the construct, predictive, convergent, and discriminant validity of the List of Values across clinical, national, and consumer samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was initially established through Kahle’s (1983) nationwide probability sample of 2,264 Americans administered through the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center. Structural equations and multi-trait multi-method comparisons indicated that the LOV successfully captures distinct psychological orientations without empirical overlap. The instrument exhibits consistent associations with well-validated psychological scales measuring self-esteem, life satisfaction (e.g., Diener’s Satisfaction with Life Scale), internal versus external locus of control (Rotter’s I-E Scale), and subjective happiness.

Predictive and Ecological Validity

In a direct empirical contest between the List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey across multiple behavioral domains, Beatty, Kahle, Homer, and Misra (1985) demonstrated that the LOV consistently equaled or outperformed the 36-item RVS in predicting specific real-world behaviors—ranging from consumer product adoption, media consumption, and leisure time allocation to participation in prosocial and community organizations. Homer and Kahle (1988) tested the structural Value-Attitude-Behavior (VAB) model using structural equation modeling (LISREL) on natural food shopping behavior; their empirical findings demonstrated that internal and external value dimensions directly predicted intermediate attitudes toward natural foods, which subsequently drove verified purchasing actions with robust model fit indices.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been established by correlating LOV dimensions with equivalent subscales of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). Specifically, the LOV Internal Individual Values factor correlates strongly with Schwartz’s Self-Direction and Achievement constructs (r > 0.60), the External Values factor converges with Security and Conformity (r > 0.55), and the Interpersonal dimension converges with Benevolence and Hedonism (r > 0.65). Discriminant validity is affirmed by minimal collinearity between distinct LOV dimensions (inter-factor correlations generally range between 0.15 and 0.42), proving that the nine items do not collapse into a single undifferentiated global social desirability metric.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the List of Values has been evaluated through multiple methodological lenses, including test-retest coefficients, rank-order stability metrics, and composite scale internal consistency.

Internal Consistency

Because the classic LOV consists of nine single items representing distinct value constructs, classic Cronbach’s alpha is properly computed on the higher-order latent subscales rather than across the entire 9-item inventory as an omnibus scale. When modeled as three structural dimensions, the empirical reliability coefficients across diverse published cohorts are:

• Internal Individual Values (4 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges from 0.72 to 0.81.
• External Values (3 items): Cronbach’s α typically ranges from 0.68 to 0.77.
• Interpersonal / Hedonic Values (2 items): Pearson correlation coefficient ranges from r = 0.52 to r = 0.68 (Spearman-Brown split-half reliability ~ 0.71).

Temporal and Rank-Order Stability

Values are theorized to be enduring psychological structures that remain relatively stable across time, changing slowly in response to fundamental developmental milestones or severe macroeconomic crises. Longitudinal evaluations conducted across an entire decennial interval demonstrated a remarkable aggregate ranking stability, with a Spearman rank-order correlation of rho = 0.83 across combined national cohorts (Kahle, 1983). Short-term test-retest reliability across intervals spanning four to eight weeks has yielded Pearson r values between 0.74 and 0.88 for individual item ratings, confirming that the scale captures resilient personality orientations rather than fluctuating affective states.

9. Factor Analysis

The latent architecture of the List of Values has been evaluated extensively via Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) across numerous sample populations globally.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Principal Component Analysis with Varimax and Promax rotations routinely extract three distinct factors accounting for between 54% and 64% of the total variance:

• Factor 1: Internal Individual Values: Displays heavy primary factor loadings (> 0.55) from Self-fulfillment (typical loading: 0.74), A sense of accomplishment (0.71), Self-respect (0.63), and Excitement (0.58). Cross-loadings onto external dimensions remain uniformly low (< 0.25).
• Factor 2: External Values: Marked by dominant factor loadings from Security (0.76), Sense of belonging (0.69), and Being well-respected (0.64).
• Factor 3: Interpersonal / Hedonic Values: Characterized by high loadings from Warm relationships with others (0.80) and Fun and enjoyment in life (0.72).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Goodness-of-Fit

Confirmatory investigations testing the hypothesized three-factor oblique model against alternative unidimensional and orthogonal structures consistently validate the superior fit of the correlated three-factor specification. Representative fit indices derived from large-scale structural equation modeling (e.g., Homer & Kahle, 1988; Chryssohoidis & Krystallis, 2005) include:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceed 0.94, often reaching 0.97.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically ranges between 0.92 and 0.96.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Consistently estimated between 0.041 and 0.058 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below 0.07).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Remains strictly below the standard 0.05 threshold.

Invariance testing further establishes metric and partial scalar invariance across gender and broad age brackets, supporting valid cross-group comparisons.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational specifications of the List of Values measurement tool are structured as follows:

• Test Type: Psychometric Self-Report Inventory / Value System Survey.
• Construct Measured: Human terminal personal values and social adaptation orientation.
• Item Count: 9 authentic items.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, computer-assisted self-interview (CASI), or digital web-based survey.
• Completion Time: Approximately 2 to 4 minutes (substantially lower than the 15–20 minutes required for the Rokeach Value Survey or Schwartz Value Survey).
• Authentic Response Scale: Respondents either rank the values from most important (1) to least important (9), or rate each value on a 9-point scale ranging from 1 = Very unimportant to 9 = Very important, typically followed by selecting their single most important value.
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Raw Interval Scoring: Direct calculation of mean scores across individual items or sum of scores for the three latent factors: Internal Individual Values (Items 2, 4, 8, 9), External Values (Items 1, 5, 7), and Interpersonal / Hedonic Values (Items 3, 6).
  • Ipsatized / Standardized Scoring: To eliminate individual response styles, acquiescence bias, and scale usage heterogeneity, ratings can be mean-centered (subtracting each participant’s across-the-board mean score for all nine items from each individual rating score).
  • Categorical / Top-Box Classification: Respondents are segmented based strictly on the single item chosen as their “most important value in daily life,” yielding a 9-group nominal classification variable suitable for demographic cross-tabulations and multinomial logistic regressions.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The List of Values was formally published in 1983 by Dr. Lynn R. Kahle in his foundational academic volume, Social Values and Social Change: Adaptation to Life in America (Praeger Publishers). The instrument was developed under the auspices of publicly supported social science research conducted at the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center.

The scale is widely considered to reside in the public domain for scholarly, academic, and non-commercial educational research. Researchers may administer the nine standard items without payment of licensing fees or royalties, provided appropriate scholarly attribution is accorded to Dr. Kahle and the foundational publications. Commercial organizations seeking to integrate the LOV into proprietary commercial marketing diagnostics or consulting platforms are advised to consult academic copyright guidelines and ensure proper citation of the publisher and originating authors.

12. References

Beatty, S. E., Kahle, L. R., Homer, P., & Misra, S. (1985). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The List of Values and the Rokeach Value Survey. Psychology & Marketing, 2(3), 181–200. https://doi.org/10.1002/mar.4220020305

Chryssohoidis, G., & Krystallis, A. (2005). Organic consumers’ personal values research: Testing and validating the List of Values (LOV) scale in Greece. Journal of Food Products Marketing, 11(3), 63–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J038v11n03_05

Homer, P. M., & Kahle, L. R. (1988). A structural equation test of the value-attitude-behavior hierarchy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(4), 638–646. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.4.638

Kahle, L. R. (1983). Social values and social change: Adaptation to life in America. Praeger.

Kahle, L. R. (1984). Attitudes and social adaptation: A person-situation interaction approach. Pergamon Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2013-0-03737-5

Kahle, L. R., Beatty, S. E., & Homer, P. (1986). Alternative measurement approaches to consumer values: The List of Values (LOV) and Values and Life Style (VALS). Journal of Consumer Research, 13(3), 405–409. https://doi.org/10.1086/209079

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.

Veroff, J., Douvan, E., & Kulka, R. A. (1981). The inner American: A life-style profile from 1957 to 1976. Basic Books.

13. Items of the Scale