Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

1. Abstract

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), developed by social psychologist Milton Rokeach in 1973, represents one of the most historically significant and foundational instruments in the empirical assessment of human values. Designed to capture the core organizational principles governing human motivation, attitude formation, and social behavior, the RVS conceptualizes human value systems along two distinct psychological dimensions: Terminal Values, which denote desirable end-states of existence, and Instrumental Values, which represent preferable modes of conduct or behavioral means of achieving those terminal goals. Each dimension comprises exactly 18 individually defined value concepts, yielding a total inventory of 36 items. The traditional response format requires respondents to engage in an ipsative rank-ordering task, arranging values from 1 (most important as a guiding principle in one’s life) to 18 (least important) separately within the terminal and instrumental lists.

Extensive psychometric investigations over five decades have illuminated both the strengths and methodological trade-offs inherent to the RVS. While the ipsative ranking format forces respondents to engage in explicit cognitive trade-offs—closely mirroring real-world decision-making under value conflict—it introduces statistical dependencies that constrain traditional normative factor analysis. To address this, subsequent researchers developed normative rating variations, including Likert-type scales and anchored interval transformations, which demonstrate satisfactory convergent validity with the original rankings. Structural analyses have repeatedly extracted coherent higher-order value clusters: terminal values typically partition into self-actualization/hedonism, social idealism, and personal security, whereas instrumental values delineate into self-direction, conformity, and virtuousness. Test-retest reliability estimates range from moderate to high, showing substantial stability across several weeks (median rho ranging from .70 to .80) while preserving sensitivity to longitudinal developmental shifts, cross-cultural divergences, and major sociopolitical transitions. This article delivers a comprehensive academic examination of the RVS, delineating its theoretical architecture, psychometric validity, structural findings, scoring modalities, and canonical items.

2. Keywords

Rokeach Value Survey, human values, terminal values, instrumental values, ipsative measurement, psychometrics, axiological psychology, Milton Rokeach, value hierarchy, cross-cultural values

3. Authors

The Rokeach Value Survey was authored and developed by Milton Rokeach (December 27, 1918 – October 25, 1988), an eminent American social psychologist whose research fundamentally shaped modern understandings of belief systems, dogmatism, social attitudes, and human values. During his extensive academic tenure, Rokeach held professorships at Michigan State University, Washington State University, and the University of Southern California. His foundational research was comprehensively detailed in his seminal treatise, The Nature of Human Values, published in 1973 by The Free Press (a division of Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., New York). Academic inquiries and archival resources concerning his work are maintained within the Special Collections of the Michigan State University Libraries and the American Psychological Association archives.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Rokeach Value Survey is to provide a standardized, operationalized metric for mapping the cognitive hierarchy of human values across individuals, demographic subcultures, and distinct national societies. Prior to Rokeach’s seminal work, the psychological assessment of motives and beliefs was largely dominated by attitude scales, which captured contextual, object-specific evaluations rather than the generalized, transcendent standards that govern human behavior across situations. Rokeach posited that while an individual may harbor thousands of distinct attitudes toward specific targets, situations, institutions, and people, those attitudes are organized under and derived from a far more parsimonious set of enduring, internalized core values numbering merely a few dozen.

The primary diagnostic and scientific purpose of the RVS is to reveal how an individual or group prioritizes these foundational imperatives when compelled to make explicit trade-offs. In social and clinical psychology, the instrument is employed to investigate the phenomenon of value self-confrontation—an intervention devised by Rokeach wherein individuals are confronted with discrepancies between their stated values, their specific behaviors, and the value hierarchies of reference groups. Such confrontation has been demonstrated to induce cognitive dissonance, catalyzing enduring shifts in social attitudes, civic participation, and prejudice reduction. By measuring the absolute and relative hierarchy of end-states versus behavioral modalities, researchers can identify the cognitive-affective determinants of behavioral pathology, interpersonal friction, and psychological well-being.

In applied domains, the RVS has exerted transformative influences across multiple sectors:

• Consumer Behavior and Marketing: Market researchers employ the RVS to construct value-based psychographic segmentations. Understanding whether a consumer segment prioritizes “A comfortable life” over “A world of beauty” or “Helpful” over “Ambitious” enables corporations to align brand positioning and product attributes with the deep-seated motivations of target audiences.
• Cross-Cultural and Cross-National Research: Cross-cultural psychologists utilize the instrument to map value shifts across democratic, socialist, post-industrial, and developing economies, establishing benchmarks for societal evolution and ideological realignment.
• Organizational Psychology: The RVS facilitates the assessment of person-organization fit (P-O fit). Organizations utilize value inventories to evaluate whether corporate cultures align with managerial and employee value hierarchies, directly informing retention, leadership development, and organizational commitment.
• Political Science and Sociology: The scale serves to operationalize political ideologies. Classic analyses have demonstrated that political orientations (e.g., socialism, capitalism, fascism, and communism) can be clearly differentiated through the intersecting prioritization of two terminal values: Freedom and Equality.

5. Psychological Construct

At the center of Rokeach’s axiological formulation is the precise psychological definition of a value. According to Rokeach (1973), a value is defined as an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence. Values represent cognitive representations of fundamental human needs that have undergone socialization and linguistic labeling. Once internalized, a value becomes a standard or criterion that guides action, determines moral judgment, justifies attitudes, and rationalizes defensive behaviors. Rokeach bifurcated the construct into two mutually exclusive, complementary systems: Terminal Values and Instrumental Values.

Terminal Values: Desirable End-States of Existence

Terminal values represent the ultimate goals, aspirations, and existential purposes toward which an individual directs personal and collective effort. Rokeach identified 18 terminal values, which can be theoretically organized into two fundamental sub-dimensions: Personal Terminal Values (self-centered end-states focused on the individual) and Social Terminal Values (other-centered end-states focused on society and interpersonal harmony):

• Self-Actualization and Hedonistic End-States: This cluster encompasses values such as A comfortable life (a prosperous life), An exciting life (a stimulating, active life), A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution), Happiness (contentedness), and Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life). These reflect an internal, individualistic focus toward personal gratification, mastery, and subjective fulfillment.
• Idealism and Collective Harmony: This grouping includes A world at peace (free of war and conflict), A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts), and Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all). These values reflect an orientation toward global preservation, universal human dignity, and aesthetic order.
• Security and Stability: Comprising Family security (taking care of loved ones) and National security (protection from attack), this dimension anchors existential protection, physical survival, and defensive stability across personal and sovereign spheres.
• Existential and Psychological Transcendence: Includes Inner harmony (freedom from inner conflict), Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy), Salvation (saved, eternal life), Self-respect (self-esteem), Social recognition (respect, admiration), True friendship (close companionship), and Wisdom (a mature understanding of life).

Instrumental Values: Preferable Modes of Conduct

Instrumental values represent the behavioral tools, behavioral standards, and characterological traits utilized to achieve the desired end-states. The 18 instrumental values are categorized into two primary theoretical subtypes: Moral Values (modes of behavior that possess interpersonal consequences and provoke guilt when violated) and Competence Values (modes of behavior focused on personal efficacy, capability, and self-actualization, provoking feelings of inadequacy or shame when unmet):

• Virtuousness and Moral Altruism: Values such as Forgiving (willing to pardon others), Helpful (working for the welfare of others), Honest (sincere, truthful), and Loving (affectionate, tender) prioritize empathy, interpersonal warmth, moral integrity, and social responsibility.
• Self-Direction and Competence: Values including Ambitious (hard-working, aspiring), Capable (competent, effective), Courageous (standing up for your beliefs), Imaginative (daring, creative), Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient), Intellectual (intelligent, reflective), and Logical (consistent, rational) operationalize agency, intellectual rigor, autonomy, and task performance.
• Conformity and Societal Decorum: Values such as Broadminded (open-minded), Clean (neat, tidy), Obedient (dutiful, respectful), Polite (courteous, well-mannered), Responsible (dependable, reliable), and Self-controlled (restrained, self-disciplined) reflect institutional conformity, behavioral regulation, restraint, and social integration.

6. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework underpinning the Rokeach Value Survey is situated squarely within cognitive and social psychology, drawing profound intellectual roots from Kurt Lewin’s field theory, Leon Festinger’s theory of cognitive dissonance, and humanistic formulations of motivation articulated by Abraham Maslow. Rokeach formulated a comprehensive systemic model of the human cognitive architecture, conceptualized as a concentric hierarchy of cognitive subsystems ranging from peripheral, easily mutable beliefs to centrally anchored, deeply entrenched orientations.

The Hierarchical Cognitive Structure

In Rokeach’s theoretical model, human cognition is structured in concentric rings of increasing stability and psychological significance:

1. Beliefs: Simple cognitive propositions held by an individual regarding what is true, probable, or desirable in the world. Beliefs exist in the millions and can fluctuate based on incoming empirical inputs.
2. Attitudes: Organized constellations of beliefs focused on a specific object, issue, person, or situation (e.g., an attitude toward environmental regulations or a specific candidate). Attitudes number in the thousands and are direct functional manifestations of deeper principles.
3. Values: The core axiological bedrock of the cognitive apparatus. Values transcend specific objects and situations. Rokeach postulated that adult human beings possess only dozens of core values, organized into an integrated, dynamic value system.

The Total Value System and Ipsative Architecture

A central tenet of Rokeach’s theoretical framework is that values do not operate in psychological isolation; they function as an interconnected, hierarchical cognitive matrix. When a behavioral decision must be enacted (e.g., whether to report a colleague’s dishonest conduct), multiple values are activated simultaneously. These activated values often exist in direct dialectical opposition—for example, the moral imperative of Honest versus the interpersonal bond of Loving or True friendship. Therefore, human choice is not determined by the absolute endorsement of a single isolated value, but rather by its relative priority within the individual’s value hierarchy.

This theoretical stance provided Rokeach with the conceptual justification for utilizing an ipsative, forced-choice rank-ordering paradigm. By requiring participants to rank 18 items against one another, the instrument simulates the structural constraints of actual existential dilemmas, where elevating one standard necessarily requires subordinating another. Furthermore, Rokeach’s framework posits that self-esteem and self-consistency represent the ultimate homeostatic motivators of human psychology. Any perceived inconsistency between one’s overarching value commitments, specific attitudes, and real-world behavior threatens self-conception, generating an affective drive toward structural reorganization.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Rokeach Value Survey has been evaluated across hundreds of empirical investigations in diverse cultural and behavioral settings.

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by the scale’s capacity to discriminate between known demographic, occupational, ideological, and religious populations in ways consistent with theoretical predictions. In his initial normative investigations encompassing thousands of American adults, Rokeach (1973) demonstrated that religious groups (e.g., active churchgoers) ranked Salvation significantly higher (often in the top quartile) compared to non-religious cohorts, who placed it at the absolute bottom (rank 18). Similarly, civil rights demonstrators ranked Equality and Freedom near the apex of their terminal hierarchy, whereas conservative political groups ranked Freedom exceptionally high but placed Equality substantially lower, validating Rokeach’s two-value model of political ideology.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity has been extensively demonstrated via cross-instrument correlations with subsequent axiological inventories, most notably the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ). Shalom H. Schwartz directly derived his ten universal motivational value types from the 36 items of the RVS. Empirical investigations examining correlations between RVS ranks and Schwartz’s dimensions show robust convergence:

• RVS A world at peace, A world of beauty, and Equality correlate strongly with Schwartz’s Universalism construct (r = .55 to .72).
• RVS Ambitious and Capable align consistently with Achievement (r = .50 to .68).
• RVS Pleasure and An exciting life load heavily onto Hedonism and Stimulation dimensions (r = .58 to .74).

Discriminant validity is supported by low correlations between RVS value rankings and generalized personality traits (e.g., the Big Five taxonomy). While moderate associations exist (e.g., Openness to Experience correlating with Imaginative and Broadminded; Agreeableness correlating with Helpful and Forgiving), values maintain distinct variance as motivational goals rather than behavioral tendencies, demonstrating that the RVS measures distinct psychological phenomena uncaptured by pure personality inventories.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

Predictive validity is firmly documented across multiple domains. In consumer behavior, Munson and McIntyre (1979) established that consumer segments with distinct vehicle preferences showed divergent value structures; luxury car buyers placed significantly higher rank on A comfortable life and Social recognition, whereas utilitarian vehicle buyers emphasized Responsible and Logical. In prosocial behavior, individuals who rank Helpful and Equality among their top five values demonstrate significantly higher volunteering hours and philanthropic donations compared to those prioritizing hedonistic or personal security values.

8. Reliability

The psychometric evaluation of reliability for the Rokeach Value Survey presents unique methodological characteristics due to its ipsative, rank-order format. Because the traditional instrument does not employ multiple multi-item scales where individual items act as parallel indicators of a single latent construct, classical internal consistency metrics—such as Cronbach’s coefficient alpha ($lpha$)—cannot be computed directly on the 1-to-18 ranked list. Instead, test-retest reliability across diverse temporal intervals constitutes the primary metric of stability.

Test-Retest Stability Coefficients

Rokeach (1973) documented comprehensive test-retest reliability data utilizing Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients ($
ho$) across various cohorts and time horizons:

• Short-Term Stability (3 to 7 weeks): Median test-retest reliability coefficients for the Terminal Values list ranged from $
  ho = .76$ to $
  ho = .80$. For the Instrumental Values list, median coefficients ranged from$
  ho = .65$ to $
  ho = .72$.
• Long-Term Stability (12 to 18 months): Terminal values demonstrated notable longitudinal consistency, maintaining median test-retest correlations between $
  ho = .69$ and $
  ho = .74$. Instrumental values demonstrated slightly lower long-term stability, with coefficients ranging from$
  ho = .60$ to $
  ho = .65$.

Individual value items display divergent stability profiles. Values that are deeply institutionalized and anchored to fundamental identity structures—such as Salvation ($
ho = .88$), National security ($
ho = .82$), and Family security ($
ho = .80$)—exhibit exceptionally high stability over time. Conversely, values that are susceptible to immediate situational fluctuations, such as Pleasure ($
ho = .57$) or Obedient ($
ho = .53$), exhibit lower test-retest coefficients.

Reliability of Rating Scale Formats

When researchers transform the RVS into interval rating formats (e.g., 7-point or 9-point Likert scales, or anchored-endpoint semantic scales) to circumvent ipsativity, classical internal consistency becomes measurable across theoretically derived subscales. Crosby, Bitner, and Cowles (1990) evaluated the internal consistency of higher-order dimensions derived from rating versions, yielding Cronbach’s alpha coefficients ranging between .68 and .82 for terminal sub-dimensions (Self-Actualization/Hedonism, Idealism, Security) and between .65 and .79 for instrumental dimensions (Self-Direction, Conformity, Virtuousness), meeting established psychometric standards for group-level research.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor analysis of the Rokeach Value Survey has generated substantial methodological discourse in psychometrics, primarily centering on the mathematical constraints of ipsative data. In ipsative rank-order data, an individual’s ranks sum to a constant ($S = \sum_{i=1}^{18} i = 171$). This mathematical constraint induces negative ipsative bias, forcing the average inter-item correlation to be slightly negative ($r \approx -1/(k-1) = -1/17 = -0.059$), violating the assumption of local independence required for unconstrained Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Methodological Solutions and Factor Structures

To overcome ipsative constraints, psychometricians have employed three distinct analytical strategies: utilizing centered log-ratio transformations, analyzing normative interval-rating formats (Munson & McIntyre, 1979), or conducting multidimensional scaling (MDS) and spatial unfolding models. Across these diverse paradigms, structural findings display consistent latent dimensions.

Terminal Value Factor Solutions

Crosby et al. (1990) and Munson and McQuarrie (1988) delineated a stable three-factor higher-order structure for the 18 terminal values:

1. Factor 1: Self-Actualization / Hedonism — Characterized by high positive loadings for A comfortable life (.64), An exciting life (.71), Pleasure (.78), and A sense of accomplishment (.58). This factor reflects self-enhancement, experiential variety, and individual mastery.
2. Factor 2: Social Idealism / Transcendence — Anchored by substantial loadings for A world at peace (.75), A world of beauty (.68), Equality (.72), and Wisdom (.54). This factor captures societal well-being, social justice, and collective flourishing.
3. Factor 3: Personal and Familial Security — Defined by loadings for Family security (.81), National security (.69), and Inner harmony (.48). This factor encapsulates stability, systemic order, and emotional preservation.

Instrumental Value Factor Solutions

The 18 instrumental values consistently resolve into three parallel operational factors:

1. Factor 1: Self-Direction and Competence — Dominated by loadings on Ambitious (.68), Capable (.74), Courageous (.62), Imaginative (.65), and Independent (.71). This dimension operationalizes proactive agency and intellectual capability.
2. Factor 2: Conformity and Behavioral Restraint — Marked by significant loadings for Clean (.66), Obedient (.77), Polite (.73), and Self-controlled (.59). This factor operationalizes normative compliance, self-regulation, and traditional social order.
3. Factor 3: Virtuousness and Interpersonal Warmth — Anchored by loadings on Forgiving (.70), Helpful (.76), Honest (.65), and Loving (.69). This dimension captures prosocial benevolence and moral integrity.

Confirmatory factor analyses utilizing modern goodness-of-fit thresholds across interval variations demonstrate acceptable model fit: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) between .90 and .93, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) between .048 and .062, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) under .06, confirming that human values are structured along distinct, psychometrically robust motivational axes.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Axiological psychometric inventory; ipsative self-report rank-order scale (with validated normative rating variants).
• Construct Measured: Individual human value systems, structured into end-states of existence (terminal values) and modes of conduct (instrumental values).
• Format: Paper-and-pencil inventory or digital administration. Each value is presented alongside a short definitional anchor in parentheses.
• Item Count: 36 total items (divided equally into 18 Terminal Values and 18 Instrumental Values).
• Response Format: Rank order from 1 (most important to you) to 18 (least important to you) separately for Terminal and Instrumental values.
• Administration Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for completion of both lists.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically suitable for individuals aged 12 years and older possessing basic reading literacy).
• Scoring and Transformation Rules:
  • Rank-Order Scores: Raw scores range from 1 to 18 for each item. A score of 1 reflects the absolute highest priority in the respondent’s life hierarchy, whereas 18 reflects the lowest priority. Lower numerical values signify higher subjective importance.
  • Subscale Derivation: Higher-order dimension scores (e.g., Idealism, Security, Competence, Conformity) can be computed by calculating the median rank or mean rank across designated item clusters. When interval rating versions are administered, mean composite scores are computed for each factor.
  • Composite Profile Matching: Profiles can be analyzed via Spearman rho correlations with reference groups or through non-metric multidimensional scaling (ALSCAL/PROXSCAL) to produce structural value maps.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Test Year: 1973 (Seminal publication in The Nature of Human Values). Preliminary development of prototype value lists commenced in 1968.
• Original Author: Milton Rokeach.
• Copyright & Commercial Publisher: The instrument was originally copyrighted by Milton Rokeach in 1967 and published commercially by Consulting Psychologists Press (CPP, Inc., now known as The Myers-Briggs Company). The definitive theoretical treatment is published by The Free Press / Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc.
• Research & Educational Permissions: For non-commercial academic, educational, and empirical scientific research, the 36 items and their accompanying definitional labels are widely cited, reproduced, and analyzed in scholarly literature under standard fair-use academic exemptions. Commercial applications, widespread diagnostic reprinting, and psychodiagnostic organizational consulting distributions may require permission or licensing from the copyright holder or representative estate.

12. References

Crosby, L. A., Bitner, M. J., & Cowles, D. (1990). Frequency of interaction, situational strength, and the relationship between values and consumer behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 17(1), 108–117. https://doi.org/10.1086/208542

Feather, N. T. (1975). The values in education and society. Free Press.

Munson, J. M., & McIntyre, S. H. (1979). Developing practical procedures for the measurement of personal values in cross-cultural marketing. Journal of Marketing Research, 16(1), 48–52. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224377901600108

Munson, J. M., & McQuarrie, E. F. (1988). Shortening the Rokeach Value Survey for use in consumer research. In M. J. Houston (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research (Vol. 15, pp. 381–386). Association for Consumer Research.

Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organization and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues, 24(1), 13–33. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1968.tb01466.x

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

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

13. Items of the Scale