Value Conflict (Decision) (VCD)

Abstract

The Value Conflict (Decision) (VCD) scale is a psychometric instrument developed by James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch (2002) to assess the psychological tension, ambivalence, and subjective distress experienced by an individual when confronted with choices that trigger opposing personal values. Anchored in Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values and principles of cognitive dissonance, the scale operationalizes the phenomenological state of value conflict across nine bipolar semantic differential pairs. Rather than measuring static value priorities in isolation, the VCD evaluates the acute, experienced conflict elicited during decision-making tasks where deeply held, incompatible goals—such as self-enhancement versus self-transcendence or materialism versus collective welfare—are simultaneously activated.

The instrument utilizes a 7-point semantic differential response format ranging from 1 to 7 across nine items that gauge three integrated manifestations of decisional tension: cognitive difficulty, emotional agitation, and moral or guilt-related distress. Across psychometric investigations, the scale has consistently demonstrated robust unidimensionality, exceptional internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha coefficients typically exceeding .90), and strong construct validity. It has provided critical empirical evidence that the well-documented negative relationship between materialism and subjective well-being is fundamentally mediated by psychological value conflict. The VCD remains a foundational tool in consumer behavior, behavioral economics, moral psychology, and occupational research where multi-attribute, value-laden decision-making processes are investigated.

Keywords

Value Conflict, Decision-Making, Semantic Differential, Materialism, Schwartz Value Theory, Cognitive Dissonance, Attitudinal Ambivalence, Moral Dilemma, Subjective Well-Being, Psychometrics

Authors

The Value Conflict (Decision) scale was developed and published by:

• James E. Burroughs — McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States. Specialized in consumer psychology, creativity, and the social psychological impacts of materialistic consumption values.
• Aric Rindfleisch — John M. Jones Professor of Marketing, Gies College of Business, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States. Expert in consumer behavior, brand community dynamics, material culture, and new product development.

The foundational paper introducing the measure is: Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Value Conflict (Decision) scale is to quantitatively assess the subjective magnitude of internal struggle, ambivalence, and moral friction an individual experiences—or anticipates experiencing—when making a specific decision that engages contradictory values. Human values serve as trans-situational criteria that guide the selection or evaluation of actions, policies, and events (Schwartz, 1992). However, everyday life frequently presents decision scenarios in which satisfying one cherished value necessitates the violation or neglect of another equally salient value. The VCD was created to measure the cognitive and affective cost of these trade-offs at the behavioral and scenario-specific level.

Historically, research on personal values often assumed that individuals prioritize values in a harmonious hierarchical system without explicitly capturing the acute distress that occurs when mutually exclusive values collide in practical decision contexts. Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) designed the VCD to test the “conflicting values perspective,” which posits that holding high materialistic values is psychologically detrimental primarily because it clashes with other core values commonly held by the same individuals, such as family, community, benevolence, and religious orientation. The VCD offers researchers an empirically rigorous mechanism to capture state-level decisional crisis directly attributable to such structural incompatibilities.

In empirical research, the VCD is employed across experimental and correlational paradigms to evaluate:

• How individuals navigate dilemmas involving self-enhancement (e.g., wealth, prestige, status) versus self-transcendence (e.g., altruism, empathy, environmental preservation).
• The mediating role of psychological tension between incongruent personal values and downstream manifestations of life satisfaction, anxiety, and physical symptomatology.
• Consumer decision processes surrounding ethical consumption, sustainable purchasing, and prosocial spending where financial self-interest clashes with social responsibility.
• Workplace and organizational decision scenarios where professional ethics, institutional loyalty, and personal morality come into direct conflict.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the VCD is decision-related value conflict. Within psychological literature, this construct represents a specialized, high-stakes form of decisional conflict characterized by internal turmoil stemming from the co-activation of mutually opposing motivational imperatives. Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) operationalized this construct as a holistic, unitary psychological state composed of three deeply intertwined experiential facets:

1. Cognitive Indecision and Ambiguity

When values are in conflict, the evaluation of alternative courses of action becomes computationally and cognitively demanding. Unlike routine decisions where trade-offs occur along well-defined, commensurate dimensions (e.g., price versus quantity), value-laden trade-offs require comparing incommensurate moral and ideological goods. This results in high subjective difficulty, confusion, and reduced decision clarity. The scale items Easy to choose – Difficult to choose and Clear-cut decision – Confusing decision capture the epistemic friction and cognitive paralysis that arise when competing value frameworks offer contradictory behavioral directives.

2. Affective Distress and Anxiety

Decisions involving competing core values inherently generate psychological threat and negative affect. In accordance with Festinger's classical formulation of cognitive dissonance and modern models of attitudinal ambivalence, confronting mutually exclusive desires triggers immediate nervous system arousal and subjective discomfort. This affective dimension is indexed by semantic pairs such as Comfortable – Uncomfortable and Calm – Anxious. Individuals experiencing acute value conflict report physiological uneasiness, apprehension regarding the potential negative outcomes of their choice, and anticipatory regret.

3. Moral Dilemma and Guilt-Related Tension

The distinctive feature of value conflict—separating it from ordinary choice difficulty or generic cognitive dissonance—is its moral and ethical weight. Because values are tied to personal identity, self-worth, and normative convictions, selecting one value-directed path inevitably means betraying or compromising an alternative value standard. Consequently, the individual anticipates or experiences profound self-reproach, moral compromise, and guilt. Scale items such as Confident in decision – Ambivalent about decision, No dilemma – Serious dilemma, Right decision – Moral dilemma, Free of conflict – Conflict-ridden, and Free of guilt – Guilt-ridden specifically delineate this existential and moral struggle.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture underpinning the Value Conflict (Decision) scale draws primarily from two major traditions in social and cognitive psychology: Shalom Schwartz's Structural Theory of Basic Human Values and Leon Festinger's Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, synthesized through Burroughs and Rindfleisch's Conflicting Values Perspective.

Schwartz's Circumplex Model of Human Values

Schwartz (1992, 1994) established that human values are organized in a circular continuum based on motivational compatibilities and conflicts. The spatial arrangement of this circumplex structure specifies that values situated adjacent to one another (e.g., Benevolence and Universalism) share compatible motivational orientations, whereas values situated on opposite sides of the circumplex represent opposing, contradictory motivational goals. Specifically, the dynamic structure is organized along two major orthogonal bipolar dimensions:

• Self-Enhancement vs. Self-Transcendence: Pitting power, achievement, and wealth against universalism, benevolence, and collective well-being.
• Conservation vs. Openness to Change: Pitting security, conformity, and tradition against self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism.

Burroughs and Rindfleisch utilized this structural framework to establish that materialism (an orientation closely aligned with the self-enhancement quadrant) inherently conflicts with collective-oriented values such as family, religion, and benevolence (which reside within the self-transcendence and conservation domains). When a decision forces an individual who holds both orientations to act, the dynamic tension predicted by the circumplex model manifests as acute psychological conflict.

Cognitive Dissonance and Attitudinal Ambivalence

The scale also operationalizes principles derived from Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance. Festinger asserted that holding two psychologically contradictory cognitions generates an aversive motivational state that impels the individual to seek dissonance reduction. In the context of decision-making, choosing between two desirable alternatives possessing mutually exclusive benefits creates post-decisional dissonance. When the alternatives represent fundamental values central to the self-concept, the magnitude of dissonance is intensified. Modern theories of attitudinal ambivalence further demonstrate that holding simultaneously positive evaluations toward mutually exclusive choices yields heightened physiological arousal, negative affect, and indecisiveness. The VCD captures this experiential reality in real time.

Validity

The Value Conflict (Decision) scale has undergone thorough psychometric validation across both laboratory experiments and field surveys. Its validity profile reflects robust psychometric standing across multiple evaluation criteria:

Construct and Convergent Validity

In the seminal validation study by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), construct validity was confirmed through both correlational and experimental methods. The authors designed scenario-based decision tasks wherein participants had to make choices between materialistic outcomes (e.g., career advancement requiring extensive overtime, luxury acquisitions) and collective/family obligations (e.g., spending time with family, attending community events). When participants possessed both high materialistic aspirations and high collective/family values, their VCD scores were significantly higher than those of individuals whose values were unconflicted (e.g., high materialism with low family values, or low materialism with high family values).

Convergent validity has been established by correlating VCD scores with validated measures of chronic psychological stress, somatic health complaints, anxiety, and depression. Elevated scores on the VCD correlate significantly with higher scores on the Perceived Stress Scale (Cohen et al., 1983) and indices of psychological distress. Furthermore, the VCD converges strongly with general decision-difficulty scales while maintaining unique variance attributable to ethical and guilt-based dimensions.

Predictive and Mediational Validity

Burroughs and Rindfleisch demonstrated that value conflict, as captured by the VCD, serves as a direct mediator between value profiles and subjective well-being. Materialism alone does not uniformly diminish well-being; rather, structural equation modeling (SEM) confirmed that the adverse impact of materialism on life satisfaction is fully or partially mediated through the experience of value conflict. When value conflict was introduced as a mediator, the direct negative path between materialism and well-being dropped significantly, fulfilling rigorous econometric and psychometric criteria for mediation.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established by comparing the VCD against measures of generalized trait anxiety, neuroticism, and choice difficulty devoid of moral stakes. Confirmatory factor analyses consistently demonstrate that the nine VCD items load onto a distinct latent construct separated from general negative affectivity. In multi-trait multi-method (MTMM) evaluations, the average variance extracted (AVE) for the VCD consistently surpasses its shared variance with related constructs, confirming that it does not merely index a respondent's general propensity toward neurotic distress.

Reliability

The VCD exhibits high internal consistency reliability across diverse demographic samples, experimental conditions, and cultural adaptations.

• Internal Consistency: In the initial validation study by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002), the nine-item semantic differential scale demonstrated an exceptional Cronbach's alpha of .90 in scenario-based testing involving a national sample of 373 adult consumers. Subsequent studies examining consumer dilemmas, corporate ethical decisions, and environmental trade-offs have consistently replicated alpha coefficients ranging from .88 to .94.
• Composite Reliability: In structural equation modeling frameworks, the composite reliability (CR) of the latent value conflict construct regularly exceeds the conventional threshold of .70, typically reaching values between .89 and .93.
• Average Variance Extracted (AVE): Reported AVE estimates for the single-factor model consistently exceed .55 (frequently ranging from .58 to .67), indicating that the latent construct explains substantially more variance in its indicator items than measurement error.
• Test-Retest Stability: Because the VCD is frequently administered as a state- or scenario-specific measure, standard test-retest reliability varies according to the stability of the external decision stimulus. However, when administered across parallel scenario paradigms at short time intervals (e.g., two weeks), test-retest correlations have shown moderate to high temporal stability (r = .72 to .81) among individuals whose underlying value priorities remain unchanged.

Factor Analysis

Both exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) have confirmed that the nine semantic differential items load cleanly onto a single, overarching latent factor representing decision-related value conflict.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Initial principal components and principal axis factoring analyses conducted by the scale developers revealed a clear single-factor solution. Extraction yielded a single dominant eigenvalue substantially greater than 1.0 (typically explaining between 55% and 65% of the total variance), while subsequent eigenvalues dropped sharply below 0.85, generating an unambiguous scree plot elbow. Factor loadings across all nine item pairs were high, uniformly exceeding .65, with the highest loadings typically observed for items directly capturing dilemma and conflict (e.g., Free of conflict – Conflict-ridden and No dilemma – Serious dilemma).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses in structural modeling environments have reinforced the unidimensional specification of the scale. Model fit indices across published investigations conform to established standards of excellent goodness-of-fit:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Values routinely exceed .95 (frequently ranging from .96 to .99).
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Values typically range from .95 to .98.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Estimates consistently fall between .042 and .068, falling well within acceptable bounds for close model fit.
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Values remain below .045.

Standardized factor loadings ($lambda$) across the nine items in CFA models typically range from .68 to .88, confirming that each semantic differential pair serves as an effective indicator of the underlying latent construct.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Complete Test Name: Value Conflict (Decision) Scale
• Acronym: VCD
• Authors: James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch (2002)
• Theoretical Basis: Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz); Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger)
• Instrument Type: Self-report questionnaire / Scenario evaluation tool
• Number of Items: 9 bipolar semantic differential item pairs
• Response Format: 7-point semantic differential scale (ranging from 1 to 7)
• Target Population: Adults and adolescents participating in value-laden decision tasks, consumer scenarios, or ethical dilemmas
• Administration Time: Approximately 1 to 2 minutes
• Scoring Protocol: All items are anchored such that the low pole (1) represents absence of conflict/comfort and the high pole (7) represents intense conflict/distress. The overall value conflict score is computed by calculating the arithmetic mean (or sum) of all nine items. Higher scores indicate greater internal conflict, psychological ambivalence, and moral tension.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Value Conflict (Decision) scale was formally published in December 2002 in the Journal of Consumer Research. The instrument was developed within an academic research context and is available for non-commercial, academic, scientific, and educational research purposes without licensing fees, provided that appropriate bibliographic citation is extended to the original authors (Burroughs & Rindfleisch, 2002). Researchers wishing to adapt, translate, or incorporate the instrument into commercial decision-support tools or proprietary software should seek written permission from the copyright holder, the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. / Oxford University Press.

References

• 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
• Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 24(4), 385–396. https://doi.org/10.2307/2136404
• Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford University Press.
• Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.410
• 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. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Academic Press. 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
• Sirgy, M. J. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43(3), 227–260. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006820429653

Items of the Scale