Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness

Abstract

The Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness instrument represents the foundational axiological domain within the comprehensive Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research (MMRS), developed under the auspices of the Fetzer Institute and the National Institute on Aging (NIA) Working Group. Guided by sociologist Ellen Idler, this operationalization bridges classical social-psychological value theory with epidemiological and behavioral health research. The long-form instrument directly integrates Shalom H. Schwartz’s 56-item Schwartz Value Survey (SVS), measuring ten motivationally distinct universal value types (Universalism, Benevolence, Conformity, Tradition, Security, Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, and Self-Direction) scored along an asymmetrical 9-point cross-cultural anchoring metric ranging from −1 (Opposed to my values) through 0 (Not important) to 7 (Of supreme importance). To accommodate large-scale epidemiological cohorts such as the General Social Survey (GSS), the working group also articulated a 3-item Values Short Form (MMRS-V-SF) derived from Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s Intrinsic/Extrinsic Religious Orientation framework and Peter L. Benson’s moral guidance indicators, administered on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = Strongly agree to 5 = Strongly disagree). Psychometric investigations across national representative samples and clinical cohorts substantiate robust construct validity, high internal consistency across Schwartz’s higher-order value dimensions (α = .71 to .88) and the intrinsic value short form (α = .68 to .76), and predictive utility in modeling health behaviors, psychological resilience, cardiovascular morbidity, and all-cause mortality in aging populations.

Keywords

Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality, MMRS, Ellen Idler, Schwartz Value Survey, Intrinsic Religiosity, Health Psychology, Fetzer Institute, Axio-Religious Systems, Psychometrics

Authors

The instrument was compiled, standardized, and published under the leadership of Ellen L. Idler, Ph.D., Samuel Candler Dobbs Professor of Sociology at Emory University and Rollins School of Public Health, in collaboration with the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group on Religiousness and Health. The interdisciplinary panel comprised leading scholars in epidemiological sociology, behavioral medicine, and the psychology of religion:

• Ellen L. Idler, Ph.D. — Department of Sociology and Institute for Health, Health Care Policy, and Aging Research, Rutgers University (subsequently Emory University, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, Georgia).
• Christopher G. Ellison, Ph.D. — Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin (subsequently University of Texas at San Antonio).
• Linda K. George, Ph.D. — Department of Sociology and Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
• Neal Krause, Ph.D. — Department of Health Behavior and Health Education, School of Public Health, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan.
• Jeffrey S. Levin, Ph.D., M.P.H. — National Institute for Healthcare Research (subsequently Baylor University, Waco, Texas).
• Marcia G. Ory, Ph.D., M.P.H. — Behavioral and Social Research Program, National Institute on Aging, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland.
• Kenneth I. Pargament, Ph.D. — Department of Psychology, Bowling Green State University, Bowling Green, Ohio.
• Lynda H. Powell, Ph.D. — Department of Preventive Medicine, Rush University Medical Center, Chicago, Illinois.
• David R. Williams, Ph.D., M.P.H. — Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan (subsequently Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts).
• Lynn Gordon, Ph.D. — The Fetzer Institute, Kalamazoo, Michigan.
• Marc A. Musick, Ph.D. — Department of Sociology, University of Texas at Austin.

Correspondence regarding the original research monograph can be directed to the Fetzer Institute, 9292 West KL Avenue, Kalamazoo, Michigan 49009, or via institutional resources at the Fetzer Institute Research Archives.

Purpose

The primary impetus for establishing the Values module within the MMRS was to rectify a historical deficiency in epidemiological and biomedical investigations of religion: the tendency to reduce religiousness to unidimensional demographic markers such as denominational affiliation or institutional attendance frequency. While institutional participation captures external behavioral compliance and social capital, it fails to delineate the internalized motivational systems, moral compasses, and cognitive priorities that govern everyday health decision-making, interpersonal interactions, lifestyle choices, and subjective well-being.

Values function as cognitive representations of abstract, desirable, trans-situational goals that serve as guiding principles in individuals’ lives. In health research, values constitute a critical intervening mechanism between religious/spiritual commitment and biological outcomes. Religious belief systems operate intrinsically as value-transmitting architectures, prioritizing certain end-states of existence (e.g., altruism, bodily sanctification, forgiveness, moderation) while deprecating others (e.g., self-indulgent hedonism, unconstrained power acquisition). When individuals adopt religiously informed value hierarchies, these principles dictate compliance with health-promoting behaviors, buffer against lifestyle distress, guide treatment adherence, and frame cognitive appraisals of illness and dying.

The MMRS Values instrument was deployed to fulfill two distinct methodological objectives:

• Comprehensive Anthropological and Psychological Profiling: Through the inclusion of Shalom H. Schwartz’s complete 56-item value inventory, researchers obtain an exhaustive profile of personal motivation across ten fundamental human value sectors, enabling fine-grained cross-cultural investigations into how explicit theological traditions align with universal human values.
• Epidemiological Tractability: Recognizing that full-length multidimensional assessments (such as the 56-item Schwartz battery) impose excessive respondent burden in multi-cohort survey projects, the working group formulated a 3-item Values Short Form (MMRS-V-SF). This streamlined inventory extracts the central motivational core of religion-as-value—namely, the extent to which religious faith operates as an overarching master motive, provides an internal moral compass, and takes precedence over competing secular concerns.

Consequently, the instrument serves both clinical health psychologists evaluating values-based existential distress in chronic illness and sociodemographic researchers assessing how cultural shifts in values influence population morbidity, behavioral risks, and mortality trajectories across the life course.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct operationalized in this instrument spans two conceptual layers: the broad, universal human values structure formulated by Shalom H. Schwartz (Long Form), and the localized construct of intrinsic religious valuation and moral orientation (Short Form).

The Ten Universal Human Value Types (Long Form)

Values are defined as enduring beliefs regarding desirable end-states or modes of conduct that transcend specific situations, guide the selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by relative importance. Schwartz organized these into ten distinct motivational categories arrayed along a circular continuum:

• Universalism: Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. Expressed through items such as Equality (item 1), A world at peace (item 17), Unity with nature (item 24), A world of beauty (item 29), Social justice (item 30), Broad-minded (item 35), and Protecting the environment (item 38).
• Benevolence: Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact. Manifested in items such as Mature love (item 19), True friendship (item 28), Loyal (item 33), Honest (item 45), Helpful (item 49), and Forgiving (item 54).
• Tradition: Respect, commitment, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional culture or religion provide. Explicitly operationalized via Respect for tradition (item 18), Humble (item 36), Accepting my portion in life (item 44), and Devout (item 51).
• Conformity: Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others and violate social expectations or norms. Captured by Politeness (item 11), Self-discipline (item 20), Honoring of parents and elders (item 40), and Obedient (item 47).
• Security: Safety, harmony, and stability of society, of relationships, and of self. Encompasses Social order (item 8), National security (item 13), Family security (item 22), Healthy (item 42), and Clean (item 56).
• Power: Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources. Indicated by Social power (item 3), Wealth (item 12), Authority (item 27), and Preserving my public image (item 46).
• Achievement: Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards. Reflected in Ambitious (item 34), Influential (item 39), Capable (item 43), and Successful (item 55).
• Hedonism: Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself. Represented by Pleasure (item 4) and Enjoying life (item 50).
• Stimulation: Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life. Measured by An exciting life (item 9), A varied life (item 25), and Daring (item 37).
• Self-Direction: Independent thought and action-choosing, creating, exploring. Represented by Freedom (item 5), Creativity (item 16), Independent (item 31), Choosing own goals (item 41), and Curious (item 53).

The Higher-Order Bipolar Dimensions

These ten value domains coalesce into two fundamental conceptual axes:

1. Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement: Contrasts values that emphasize concern for the welfare and interests of others (Universalism, Benevolence) with values that emphasize the pursuit of one’s own relative status, success, and dominance (Power, Achievement).
2. Conservation vs. Openness to Change: Contrasts values that emphasize order, self-restriction, preservation of the past, and resistance to change (Tradition, Conformity, Security) with values that emphasize independence of thought, action, feeling, and readiness for change (Self-Direction, Stimulation, Hedonism).

Intrinsic Religious Valuation (Short Form)

The 3-item Short Form captures the psychological internalization of religion as a primary, foundational axiological system. It assesses the master-motive quality of faith (“My whole approach to life is based on my religion”), the prioritization of religious values over competing secular pursuits (the reverse-coded statement, “Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life”), and the active behavioral utilization of religious doctrine as an ethical, moral decision-making rubric (“My faith helps me know right from wrong”).

Theoretical Framework

The conceptual framework uniting the long and short forms of this scale resides at the intersection of Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values, Gordon Allport’s classic taxonomy of religious sentiment, and functionalist theories of social cohesion and health sociology.

Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values

Schwartz posited that human values stem from three universal requirements of human existence: biological needs of the individual, requisites of coordinated social interaction, and survival/welfare needs of groups. In Schwartz’s structural model, adjacent values share compatible motivational goals, whereas opposing values harbor conflicting motivational pursuits. For example, the pursuit of Tradition and Conformity is functionally compatible with Benevolence, as both promote group solidarity. Conversely, pursuing Power or Hedonism inherently conflicts with Benevolence and Tradition.

Ellen Idler and the NIA/Fetzer working group integrated this model because world religions systematically reinforce Conservation (Tradition, Conformity) and Self-Transcendence (Benevolence, Universalism), while actively discouraging unconstrained Self-Enhancement (Power) and Openness to Change (Hedonism, Stimulation). By capturing the entire 56-item spectrum, researchers can empirically verify whether an individual’s religious affiliation or spiritual engagement actually reshapes their global value priorities away from egocentric drives toward pro-social and altruistic motivations.

Allport’s Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Orientation

The Values Short Form is rooted theoretically in Gordon Allport and J. Michael Ross’s (1967) construct of Intrinsic Religiousness. Allport posited that while extrinsically religious individuals “use” religion for utilitarian ends (e.g., social status, comfort, personal gain), intrinsically motivated individuals “live” their religion. For the intrinsically religious person, religion is an end in itself—a master motive that suffuses every domain of cognition, interpersonal conduct, and moral discernment. Item 1 (“My whole approach to life is based on my religion”) and Item 2 (“Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life”) directly instantiate this intrinsic axiological orientation.

The Social-Ethical Framework of Benson

Item 3 of the Short Form is derived from Peter L. Benson, Michael J. Donahue, and Joseph A. Erickson’s extensive studies on youth and adult faith development through the Search Institute. Benson demonstrated that mature religiousness includes an ethical-moral imperative. Faith is not merely an abstract theological assent; it functions as an operative cognitive compass providing normative definitions of righteousness, justice, and interpersonal responsibility (“My faith helps me know right from wrong”). This aligns with Emile Durkheim’s classical sociological assertion that religious systems are primarily moral communities that anchor social order by subordinating individual desires to shared moral imperatives.

Validity

Extensive psychometric investigations have established robust construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related predictive validity for both the 56-item Schwartz framework and the 3-item MMRS Values Short Form across diverse population samples.

Construct and Convergent Validity

In cross-cultural validations conducted across more than 65 countries involving tens of thousands of participants, Schwartz confirmed that the 56 items consistently cluster into the ten postulated value types using multidimensional scaling (MDS) and confirmatory factor analysis. When examining the religiousness interface, studies by Saroglou, Delpierre, and Dernelle (2004) synthesized data from 21 countries and demonstrated that across Christian, Jewish, and Muslim populations, self-reported religiousness converges positively and moderately to strongly with Tradition (mean r = .52) and Conformity (mean r = .32), moderately with Benevolence (mean r = .21), and negatively with Hedonism (mean r = −.33), Stimulation (mean r = −.29), and Self-Direction (mean r = −.15).

Regarding the MMRS Values Short Form, data from the 1998 General Social Survey (GSS; N = 1,445) detailed by Idler et al. (2003, 2004) demonstrated strong convergent validity with other core MMRS domains. The 3-item Values scale correlated positively and robustly with Private Religious Practices (r = .62, p < .001), Daily Spiritual Experiences (r = .65, p < .001), and Religious Coping (r = .59, p < .001). Conversely, it demonstrated weak to moderate associations with purely institutional practices such as organizational attendance (r = .45), confirming that it measures internalized personal valuation rather than mere social habit.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity has been demonstrated by showing that the Values Short Form remains distinct from general measures of optimism (Life Orientation Test-Revised), generalized positive affect (PANAS), and social desirability (Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale, with correlations typically below r = .18). Furthermore, in the Schwartz 56-item profile, the distinction between Self-Transcendence (Benevolence, Universalism) and Conservation (Tradition, Conformity) allows researchers to differentiate between spiritually driven altruistic social engagement and dogmatic, authoritarian compliance.

Predictive and Criterion Validity in Health Outcomes

Epidemiological investigations utilizing the MMRS Values scale have demonstrated significant predictive associations with physical and mental health metrics:

• Cardiovascular Health and All-Cause Mortality: In longitudinal analyses of older adult cohorts (e.g., Idler et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2003), high scores on intrinsic religious values predicted lower five-year mortality hazards (Hazard Ratio [HR] = 0.82, 95% CI [0.71, 0.95]), even after adjusting for baseline comorbidity, socioeconomic status, and behavioral health habits.
• Substance Abuse and Health Risk Behaviors: Higher valuation of Tradition, Conformity, and Intrinsic Religious Values consistently predicts lower rates of alcohol abuse, illicit drug consumption, and cigarette smoking, mediated by internalized moral restraint and health-as-sacred perceptions.
• Depressive Symptomatology: In clinical settings involving patients facing terminal diagnoses, intrinsic religious values serve as a protective buffer against existential demoralization, despair, and suicidal ideation, providing cognitive scaffolding that preserves perceived meaning in life.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of both the Schwartz 56-item battery and the MMRS Values Short Form have been verified across multiple independent investigations.

Internal Consistency

For the long-form Schwartz Value Survey, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the ten individual value subscales generally range from acceptable to high, depending on the number of items per subscale:

• Tradition: α = .68 to .78
• Benevolence: α = .72 to .84
• Universalism: α = .76 to .88
• Conformity: α = .71 to .82
• Security: α = .70 to .80
• Power: α = .73 to .83
• Achievement: α = .74 to .85
• Hedonism: α = .78 to .86
• Stimulation: α = .74 to .83
• Self-Direction: α = .69 to .79

When aggregate higher-order composite scores are computed (e.g., Conservation vs. Openness to Change; Self-Transcendence vs. Self-Enhancement), internal consistency consistently exceeds α = .85.

For the 3-item MMRS Values Short Form, despite its brief composition, internal reliability has proven stable:

• In the 1998 General Social Survey representative sample (Idler et al., 2003), the standardized Cronbach’s alpha was α = .74.
• Subsequent biomedical studies employing the 3-item form in chronic pain, cardiovascular, and oncology cohorts have reported alpha coefficients ranging from α = .68 to α = .77. Given that Cronbach’s alpha is mathematically sensitive to item quantity, a 3-item scale achieving > .70 indicates strong internal item intercorrelation and homogeneous construct saturation.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments over intervals ranging from 6 weeks to 6 months reveal substantial longitudinal stability:

• Schwartz value types demonstrate test-retest intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranging between .75 and .88 over a two-month span, reflecting the theoretical premise that basic values represent enduring, trait-like cognitive structures.
• The 3-item MMRS Values Short Form demonstrated an ICC of .78 over a 12-week test-retest period in an outpatient cardiac rehabilitation cohort, confirming that intrinsic religious orientation remains stable in the absence of profound existential trauma or religious deconstruction.

Factor Analysis

The structural validity of the values instruments has been confirmed using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), alongside Multidimensional Scaling (MDS).

Structural Analysis of the Schwartz 56-Item Inventory

Schwartz utilized non-metric Multidimensional Scaling (Similarity Structure Analysis [SSA]) across data from hundreds of samples globally. The two-dimensional spatial configuration confirms that values form a circumplex where:

• Items belonging to the same value type occupy contiguous geometric regions in the multidimensional space.
• Item factor loadings obtained through maximum likelihood CFA confirm substantial standardized regression weights (λ = .52 to .84) onto their respective latent value constructs.
• Goodness-of-fit statistics across cross-validation cohorts have consistently yielded adequate to strong parameters: Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .91, Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI) ≥ .90, and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055.

Factor Structure of the Values Short Form

In the psychometric evaluation of the MMRS within the 1998 General Social Survey, principal axis factoring and maximum likelihood CFA were applied to the 3-item Values domain:

• Unidimensionality: Scree plot inspection and eigenvalue criteria demonstrated an undeniable single-factor structure, with the primary latent eigenvalue accounting for 66.4% of the total variance.
• Factor Loadings (λ):
  • Item 1 (“My whole approach to life is based on my religion”): Standardized loading = .83
  • Item 2 (“Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life” [reverse scored]): Standardized loading = .56
  • Item 3 (“My faith helps me know right from wrong”): Standardized loading = .78
• Model Fit: When evaluated within a full measurement model of the MMRS containing eight core latent factors (Values, Coping, Forgiveness, Beliefs, Daily Spiritual Experiences, Private Practices, Social Support, Organizational Participation), the Values factor exhibited clean discriminant loading, and the comprehensive model displayed robust fit: χ² / df = 2.31, CFI = .948, TLI = .940, RMSEA = .042 (90% CI [.039, .045]).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Name: Values, Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness (MMRS Values Domain)
• Alternative Titles: Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality – Values Short Form (MMRS-V-SF); Schwartz Value Survey Integration in MMRS
• Author/Lead Developer: Ellen L. Idler, Ph.D., in conjunction with the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group
• Test Type: Standardized self-report rating scale (axiological and religious orientation inventory)
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire, online assessment platform, or structured clinical/sociological interview
• Administration Time:
  • Long Form (56 items): Approximately 15–25 minutes
  • Short Form (3 items): Approximately 1–2 minutes
• Item Count:
  • Long Form: 56 items (divided across two columns: 30 terminal values and 26 instrumental values)
  • Short Form: 3 items
• Response Scale (Long Form): 9-point cross-cultural anchoring scale:
  • -1 = Opposed to my values
  • 0 = Not important
  • 1, 2, 3 = Important
  • 4, 5, 6 = Very important
  • 7 = Of supreme importance
• Response Scale (Short Form): 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Strongly agree
  • 2 = Agree
  • 3 = Not sure
  • 4 = Disagree
  • 5 = Strongly disagree
• Scoring Rules:
  • Short Form Scoring: Item 2 is negatively phrased (“Although I believe in my religion, many other things are more important in life”) and must be reverse-scored prior to computing the aggregate index (1 = 5, 2 = 4, 3 = 3, 4 = 2, 5 = 1). In standard scoring, items are recoded so that higher scores represent higher intrinsic religious valuation (e.g., 5 = Strongly agree, 1 = Strongly disagree) or averaged across the three items (summed range: 3 to 15; mean range: 1.0 to 5.0).
  • Long Form (Schwartz 56 items) Scoring: Subscale indices are created by computing the mean rating for the items belonging to each of the 10 motivational domains (Universalism, Benevolence, Tradition, Conformity, Security, Power, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction). Because individual respondents differ systematically in their scale use (response style/scale usage tendency), researchers typically calculate each respondent’s mean rating across all 56 items (Mean Religious/Value Scale Score, MRSS) and center individual value scores around this personal mean (ipsatization) prior to correlation or regression analyses.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research was officially published in 1999 by the Fetzer Institute in collaboration with the National Institute on Aging, with subsequent seminal empirical validation papers published by Ellen Idler and colleagues in 2003 and 2004 in Research on Aging.

Licensing and Accessibility: The MMRS assessment monograph, including the Values domain and its short form, was developed with public and philanthropic grant funding and placed in the public domain for academic, scientific, and clinical health research purposes. The scale may be utilized free of charge without formal royalty payments or licensing fees.

Researchers utilizing the 56-item Schwartz Value Survey within the long-form protocol should appropriately cite Shalom H. Schwartz’s foundational psychometric publications (e.g., Schwartz, 1992). The complete Fetzer/NIA report is accessible via the Fetzer Institute Research Documentation Repository.

References

• Allport, G. W., & Ross, J. M. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0021212
• Benson, P. L., Donahue, M. J., & Erickson, J. A. (1989). The Faith Maturity Scale: Specification, evaluation, and utility. National Council on Family Relations.
• Fetzer Institute / National Institute on Aging Working Group. (1999). Multidimensional Measurement of Religiousness/Spirituality for Use in Health Research: A Report of the Fetzer Institute/National Institute on Aging Working Group. John E. Fetzer Institute. https://fetzer.org/resources/multidimensional-measurement-religiousnessspirituality-use-health-research
• Idler, E. L., Musick, M. A., Ellison, C. G., George, L. K., Krause, N., Ory, M. G., Pargament, K. I., Powell, L. H., Underwood, L. G., & Williams, D. R. (2003). Measuring multiple dimensions of religion and spirituality for health research: Conceptual background and findings from the 1998 General Social Survey. Research on Aging, 25(4), 327–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/0164027503252749
• Powell, L. H., Shahabi, L., & Thoresen, C. E. (2003). Religion and spirituality: Linkages to physical health. American Psychologist, 58(1), 36–52. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.58.1.36
• Saroglou, V., Delpierre, V., & Dernelle, R. (2004). Values and religiosity: A meta-analysis of studies using Schwartz’s model. Personality and Individual Differences, 37(4), 721–734. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2003.10.005
• 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

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)