Universalism Values Importance (UVI)

1. Abstract

The Universalism Values Importance (UVI) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument adapted from the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values to measure the extent to which individuals prioritize universalism as a core guiding principle in their lives. Operationalized prominently in consumer psychology, environmental psychology, and value conflict research by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), the scale comprises nine specific items derived directly from the broader Schwartz Value Survey (SVS). These items assess an individual’s orientation toward self-transcendent goals, encompassing three primary conceptual facets: universal protection and preservation of the natural environment, social justice and broadminded equality, and profound existential or inner harmony.

Respondents evaluate each of the nine items using the authentic Schwartz asymmetric 9-point rating format, spanning from -1 (Opposed to my values), through 0 (Not important), to 7 (Of supreme importance). Psychometrically, the UVI exhibits robust internal consistency across diverse empirical investigations, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients consistently ranging between .82 and .88. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) demonstrate sound construct validity, with well-fitting unidimensional or tightly clustered hierarchical factor solutions that load strongly on a central self-transcendence dimension. Criterion and predictive validity have been repeatedly affirmed in investigations of prosocial behaviors, sustainable and ecological consumption, ethical decision-making, and psychological well-being. Critically, the instrument serves as an empirical counterbalance to self-enhancement constructs—specifically materialism, hedonism, and power—providing a rigorous diagnostic metric for understanding intrapsychic value conflicts, ethical behavior, and ecological advocacy across clinical, organizational, and socio-cultural paradigms.

2. Keywords

Universalism Values Importance, Schwartz Value Survey, Self-Transcendence, Value Conflicts, Materialism, Environmental Concern, Social Justice, Psychometrics, Prosocial Behavior, Construct Validity

3. Authors

The Universalism Values Importance (UVI) operationalization originates from the cross-cultural value frameworks developed by Shalom H. Schwartz, and was specifically isolated, validated, and applied to value conflict dynamics by James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch.

• Shalom H. Schwartz, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the Department of Psychology, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Mount Scopus, Jerusalem, Israel. Pioneer of the Theory of Basic Human Values and developer of the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ).
• James E. Burroughs, Ph.D.: Professor of Commerce and Rolls-Royce Commonwealth Professor of Business Administration, McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, USA. Primary research focuses on consumer behavior, creativity, and value conflict systems.
• Aric Rindfleisch, Ph.D.: John M. Jones Professor of Marketing and Executive Director of the Illinois MakerLab, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, USA. Renowned scholar in materialism, consumer well-being, and social innovation.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Universalism Values Importance (UVI) scale is to quantitatively assess the motivational goal of universalism, defined as understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Historically, value measurement suffered from fragmented conceptualizations that failed to distinguish between overarching human terminal goals and situational attitudes. Schwartz’s foundational work established that human values act as trans-situational criteria that guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. When Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) investigated the psychological underpinnings of subjective well-being and consumption, they required an empirically sound, theoretically integrated measure to capture the self-transcendent antithesis of self-enhancement values, particularly materialism.

In applied psychological research, the UVI serves multiple diagnostic and analytical functions:

• Quantifying Value Conflict: The scale allows researchers to examine systemic intrapsychic value discordance. According to the circumplex model of human values, universalism and benevolence (self-transcendence) stand in direct psychological opposition to power, achievement, and hedonism (self-enhancement). High endorsements on the UVI coupled with elevated materialism produce distinct intrapsychic tension, psychological stress, and compromised subjective well-being.
• Environmental and Pro-Ecological Psychology: Because universalism encompasses direct concern for nature, biospheric preservation, and natural beauty, the scale is extensively used to explain variances in sustainable consumption, ecological footprint reduction, recycling commitments, and climate advocacy.
• Prosocial and Intergroup Dynamics: Universalism extends welfare concerns beyond the in-group (which is characteristic of benevolence) to all humanity and out-groups. Consequently, the scale is applied to predict intercultural tolerance, xenophobia reduction, immigrant inclusion, and commitment to global human rights initiatives.
• Clinical and Counseling Contexts: Psychologists utilize universalism assessments to illuminate existential and lifestyle incongruencies. Clients struggling with compulsive acquisition, occupational burnout in purely profit-driven environments, or moral distress often demonstrate a chronic misalignment between latent universalist aspirations and overt behavioral patterns.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the Universalism Values Importance instrument is multifaceted yet structurally coherent, grounded in the universal requirements of human survival: the survival needs of organisms, the requisites of coordinated social interaction, and the welfare requirements of socio-ecological communities. Within Schwartz’s taxonomy, universalism encompasses goals that transcend narrow personal gratification or localized group favoritism. It consists of three primary, interconnected sub-dimensions:

5.1. Societal Welfare, Justice, and Equality

This sub-dimension represents the orientation toward the protection and uplift of human society, particularly vulnerable or historically marginalized populations. It is operationalized through items evaluating Social justice (correcting injustice, care for the weak) and Equality (equal opportunity for all). Unlike benevolence, which focuses on the preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact (e.g., family, close friends), universalism demands equal treatment and institutional fairness for strangers, minority groups, and distant populations. Psychological indicators here reflect high empathy, moral inclusion, and adherence to principles of distributive and procedural justice.

5.2. Interpersonal Tolerance and Broadmindedness

This conceptual facet captures cognitive and affective openness toward diverse ideologies, cultures, and viewpoints. Represented by items such as Broadminded (tolerant of different ideas and beliefs), Wisdom (a mature understanding of life), and A world at peace (free of war and conflict), this facet measures an individual’s rejection of dogmatism, authoritarianism, and intergroup hostility. Individuals high in this dimension demonstrate cognitive complexity, low need for cognitive closure regarding social conventions, and a profound commitment to peaceful conflict resolution through diplomatic and empathetic engagement.

5.3. Biospheric and Aesthetic Harmony

Unlike purely anthropocentric models of human values, the universalism construct explicitly incorporates biospheric values. This includes items such as Protecting the environment (preserving nature), Unity with nature (fitting into nature), and A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts), alongside Inner harmony (at peace with oneself). This facet captures ecological consciousness, biophilia, and deep psychological alignment between personal identity and the natural ecosystem. Furthermore, it integrates aesthetic appreciation and existential peace as core transcendent components, reflecting a mature realization that human flourishing is inseparable from environmental health and psychological equilibrium.

6. Theoretical Framework

The UVI scale is anchored squarely within the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values (1992, 1994, 2012) and elaborated through the Conflicting Values Perspective formulated by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002).

6.1. The Schwartz Circumplex Value Model

Schwartz posited that values are cognitively organized in a circular continuum reflecting motivational compatibilities and conflicts. The spatial arrangement of the ten basic values forms a two-dimensional circumplex space:

• Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement: Universalism and Benevolence emphasize acceptance of others as equals and concern for their welfare. They stand in direct structural opposition to Power, Achievement, and Material Acquisition (Self-Enhancement), which prioritize personal dominance, status, and control over resources.
• Openness to Change vs. Conservation: Self-Direction and Stimulation (autonomy, novelty) stand in contrast to Security, Conformity, and Tradition (stability, social order). Universalism shares a structural boundary with Self-Direction, reflecting an open-minded, intellectual curiosity about humanity and the cosmos.

The circumplex dictates that pursuing universalist values (e.g., spending financial resources to preserve wetlands or donating time to asylum seekers) directly frustrates the pursuit of self-enhancement values (e.g., accumulating luxury goods to signal prestige). The motivational goal of universalism is explicitly defined as understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature.

6.2. The Conflicting Values Perspective of Burroughs and Rindfleisch

Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) applied this circular continuum to resolve long-standing paradoxes regarding why materialistic values diminish subjective well-being. They posited that materialism is not merely an isolated preoccupation with possessions; rather, it is embedded within the self-enhancement motivational cluster. When individuals hold both high materialistic orientations and high universalist values simultaneously, they experience severe intra-attitudinal conflict.

According to cognitive consistency theories, such as Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory and value-expressive attitude theories, harbouring opposing fundamental motivations engenders chronic self-regulatory strain, guilt, and diminished life satisfaction. The UVI scale serves as the operational baseline of the self-transcendent axis against which materialist aspirations are contrasted to calculate an individual’s value conflict index.

7. Validity

The psychometric validity of the UVI has been extensively corroborated across diverse demographic samples, international contexts, and methodological designs.

7.1. Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity is evidenced by substantial, statistically significant correlations between the UVI and established scales measuring conceptually congruent traits. The UVI correlates strongly and positively with the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale (typical $r = .48$ to $.62, p < .001$), demonstrating that high scorers firmly endorse biospheric preservation. Strong positive associations are observed with the Dispositional Empathy Global Index, particularly the Perspective Taking and Empathic Concern subscales of the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) ($r = .41$ to $.55$). Furthermore, convergent validity is documented through significant alignments with Agreeableness ($r = .38, p < .01$) and Openness to Experience ($r = .44, p < .001$) from the Five-Factor Model of personality.

7.2. Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated via structural equation modeling (SEM) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE) calculations. In Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), universalism was modeled alongside materialism (measured via the Richins and Dawson Material Values Scale). The AVE for the UVI items exceeded the squared correlation between universalism and materialism ($\phi^2 = .14$), fulfilling the Fornell-Larcker criterion. Additionally, the UVI demonstrates clear theoretical orthogonality or negative relationships with scales measuring authoritarianism, ethnocentrism, and social dominance orientation (SDO), with correlations between universalism and SDO consistently falling between $r = -.35$ and $-.52$.

7.3. Predictive and Criterion-Related Validity

The UVI demonstrates superior predictive validity across diverse behavioral domains. In consumer studies, higher scores on the UVI significantly predict willingness to pay price premiums for ethically certified, fair-trade, and carbon-neutral products ($eta = .34, p < .001$). In civic engagement frameworks, longitudinal studies reveal that baseline universalism scores predict volunteerism for non-governmental humanitarian organizations over a two-year horizon, even after controlling for baseline religious attendance and socioeconomic status.

8. Reliability

The reliability of the Universalism Values Importance scale has been evaluated using classical test theory and contemporary latent variable reliability indices across multiple investigations.

8.1. Internal Consistency

• Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002): In their primary national sample of 373 adult consumers, the 9-item universalism scale exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) of .84, indicating high internal consistency.
• Cross-Cultural Replications: Cross-national investigations utilizing the 9-item universalism composite from the SVS (e.g., across samples in North America, Western Europe, and East Asia) report internal reliability estimates spanning from $lpha = .80$ to $.88$.
• Composite Reliability (CR): Structural equation modeling studies routinely report composite reliability coefficients above the recommended .70 threshold, typically ranging between $ ext{CR} = .83$ and $.87$. The McDonald’s omega ($\omega$) values match or exceed alpha coefficients, verifying that high reliability is maintained without violating tau-equivalence assumptions.

8.2. Test-Retest Stability

In stability studies assessing basic human values over time, the universalism construct exhibits notable longitudinal robustness. Across four-week and eight-week retest intervals, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) range between .78 and .85. Over extended periods (one to two years), test-retest correlations remain highly stable ($r pprox .65$ to $.72$), reflecting Schwartz’s assertion that core values represent stable, enduring motivational dispositions across adulthood, barring profound life transitions or societal upheavals.

9. Factor Analysis

Extensive exploratory (EFA) and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have evaluated the internal latent architecture of the 9-item UVI instrument.

9.1. Exploratory Factor Structure

When evaluated via EFA using principal axis factoring with promax or varimax rotation, the nine items typically extract a strong dominant general factor explaining between 42% and 52% of the total variance, with an eigenvalue exceeding 4.0. In multidimensional extractions without constraint, three closely correlated second-order factors frequently emerge, mirroring the conceptual sub-facets:

1. Nature/Ecology: Items 1, 2, and 3 (loadings ranging from .72 to .86).
2. Social Equality and Justice: Items 4, 5, 7, and 8 (loadings ranging from .64 to .79).
3. Holistic/Inner Harmony and Wisdom: Items 6 and 9 (loadings ranging from .58 to .71).

9.2. Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Confirmatory factor analytic investigations evaluating the unidimensional structure as employed by Burroughs and Rindfleisch confirm acceptable to excellent goodness-of-fit indices across various samples. Typical structural fit parameters include:

• $\chi^2 / ext{df}$ ratio: Between 1.85 and 2.65 (indicating excellent structural parsimony).
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Typically $ge .94$ to $.97$.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Typically $ge .92$ to $.96$.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranging from .041 to .062 (with 90% confidence intervals bounded below .08).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Ranging from .035 to .049.

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across the nine indicators are uniformly robust, ranging from .55 to .83. Items relating directly to institutional equality and environmental preservation (e.g., Protecting the environment, $lambda pprox .78$; Social justice, $lambda pprox .81$) demonstrate the highest structural centrality within the latent construct.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The UVI is administered as a self-report paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire. To ensure authentic administration adhering to the psychometric foundations of Schwartz (1992) and Burroughs & Rindfleisch (2002), the following parameters must be maintained:

• Instrument Name: Universalism Values Importance (UVI)
• Item Count: 9 items
• Response Format: 9-point rating scale ranging from -1 = Opposed to my values, 0 = Not important, to 7 = Of supreme importance. (The full Schwartz anchor set includes: -1 = Opposed to my values, 0 = Not important, 3 = Important, 6 = Very important, 7 = Of supreme importance).
• Administration Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Scoring Procedure: All 9 items are positively keyed. There is no reverse-scoring. An overall universalism values importance score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean rating across all 9 items:$$\text{UVI Score} = \frac{1}{9} \sum_{i=1}^{9} \text{Item}_i$$Higher scores indicate that universalist values operate as central, dominant guiding principles in the respondent’s life.
• Scale-Use Correction (Optional/Advanced): In cross-cultural research utilizing the full Schwartz Value Survey, researchers often center an individual’s subscale score around their Mean Relational Rating (MRR across all 56 values) to correct for individual response tendencies (e.g., acquiescence or extreme responding). In standalone assessments of UVI as applied by Burroughs & Rindfleisch (2002), the uncorrected arithmetic mean is widely used to capture absolute motivational importance.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Universalism Values Importance items were originally formulated by Shalom H. Schwartz in 1992 as part of the Schwartz Value Survey and adapted specifically into the 9-item UVI composite by James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch in their seminal 2002 Journal of Consumer Research publication.

The items and framework are published extensively within academic literature and are considered open for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scientific research without financial fees, provided appropriate bibliographic citation is accorded to the original authors. Researchers intending to employ the instrument within commercial consulting, proprietary corporate evaluations, or copyrighted testing software must seek express permission from the copyright holders and publishers (Oxford University Press / University of Chicago Press for the 2002 application, and Shalom H. Schwartz).

12. References

The following references provide the empirical, theoretical, and psychometric foundations for the Universalism Values Importance scale:

• 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/10.1086/344005
• 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
• 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. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
• Schwartz, S. H., & Boehnke, K. (2004). Evaluating the structure of human values with confirmatory factor analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 38(3), 230–255. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00069-2

13. Items of the Scale