Rokeach Value Survey: Understanding Your Core Values

The Core Definition and Structure of the Rokeach Value Survey

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is a foundational, highly influential classification system designed to measure and understand human values. Developed by the renowned social psychologist Milton Rokeach, the RVS posits that human values are finite in number, universally applicable, and organized into a hierarchical system of importance unique to each individual. The fundamental mechanism driving the RVS is the crucial distinction between two independent yet interconnected sets of values: the goals we strive for, and the behavioral means we employ to achieve those goals. This structure provides a comprehensive snapshot of an individual’s motivational priorities and moral compass, moving beyond simple attitudes to assess deeply held beliefs that guide life choices.

The core of the RVS consists of 36 distinct value items, divided equally into two groups of 18. The first set is referred to as terminal values, which represent desirable end-states of existence—the ultimate goals a person wishes to attain during their lifetime. The second set comprises instrumental values, which define preferable modes of behavior or conduct necessary for the attainment of those terminal goals. This dual-system approach allows researchers not only to identify what people want out of life but also how they believe they should behave in the process of pursuing those outcomes. The inherent simplicity and clear categorization of the RVS have contributed significantly to its widespread adoption across various social science disciplines.

The structure of the RVS reflects Rokeach’s belief that a value system is an enduring organization of beliefs concerning preferable modes of conduct or end-states of existence along a continuum of relative importance. This organization provides the framework necessary for individuals to make judgments, justify actions, compare themselves to others, and regulate internal conflicts. By forcing participants to rank these values according to personal importance, the RVS yields quantitative data that can be used to compare value systems across different demographic groups, cultures, and political affiliations, offering profound insights into the psychological underpinnings of human motivation and social behavior.

Historical Foundation and Development by Milton Rokeach

The theoretical groundwork for the Rokeach Value Survey was meticulously laid out by Milton Rokeach during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Rokeach, whose work often centered on beliefs, attitudes, and political ideologies, recognized the limitations of studying attitudes in isolation, realizing that deeper, more stable values must be the true determinants of behavior. This realization culminated in his seminal 1968 volume, Beliefs, Attitudes, and Values: A Theory of Organization and Change, which established the philosophical basis for linking fundamental values directly to observable beliefs and attitudes. This volume argued that values are fewer in number than attitudes, transcend specific situations, and are more central to an individual’s identity, thereby serving as powerful motivators and standards for evaluation.

The actual instrument, the Rokeach Value Survey, was formally instrumentalized and introduced in his highly influential 1973 book, The Nature of Human Values. This period marked a significant shift in psychological research, moving toward more standardized and quantifiable measures of internal cognitive structures. Rokeach developed the RVS as a direct response to the need for a practical, non-projective method for measuring human values that could be easily administered and reliably scored. Unlike previous, more abstract attempts to categorize human needs or traits, the RVS presented concrete, familiar concepts that people could readily rank, thus enhancing its utility for large-scale empirical research across sociology, anthropology, and psychology.

The development process involved extensive testing and refinement of the 36 value items, ensuring they covered a broad spectrum of human aspirations and moral concerns. Rokeach deliberately chose terms that were common in everyday language, making the survey highly accessible to a general population while maintaining rigorous psychological validity. The historical significance of RVS lies not just in its structure, but in its ability to provide empirical evidence supporting the theoretical connection between abstract values and concrete behavioral outcomes, thereby bridging the gap between philosophical discussions of morality and the empirical study of social science.

Terminal Values: Desirable End-States of Existence

The set of terminal values represents the ultimate goals, aspirations, and desired conditions of life that an individual seeks to achieve. These are the deep-seated objectives that provide meaning and direction to one’s existence, acting as guiding stars for long-term planning and decision-making. Rokeach defined them as “desirable end-states of existence,” encompassing both personal (e.g., self-respect, happiness) and social (e.g., world peace, equality) focuses. Understanding an individual’s ranking of these terminal values is critical, as it reveals their core life philosophy and the ultimate criteria they use to judge whether their life has been meaningful and successful.

The 18 terminal values included in the RVS are carefully selected to cover the spectrum of human desires, ranging from hedonistic pleasures to spiritual salvation and intellectual pursuits. These values are not static; while they are generally stable over time, their relative importance can shift subtly in response to major life events, cultural changes, or personal maturation. For instance, a young person might prioritize an “Exciting Life” and “Social Recognition,” whereas an older individual might rank “Wisdom” and “Inner Harmony” higher. The relative priority assigned to each item is what defines the unique value system of the participant.

The full list of terminal values requires participants to weigh competing desires against one another, forcing a clear prioritization. The list is comprehensive and includes:

• A Comfortable Life (a prosperous life)
• An Exciting Life (a stimulating, active life)
• A Sense of Accomplishment (lasting contribution)
• A World at Peace (free of war and conflict)
• A World of Beauty (beauty of nature and the arts)
• Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all)
• Family Security (taking care of loved ones)
• Freedom (independence, free choice)
• Happiness (contentedness)
• Inner Harmony (freedom from inner conflict)
• Mature Love (sexual and spiritual intimacy)
• National Security (protection from attack)
• Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life)
• Salvation (saved, eternal life)
• Self-Respect (self-esteem)
• Social Recognition (respect and admiration)
• True Friendship (close companionship)
• Wisdom (a mature understanding of life)

Instrumental Values: Preferable Modes of Behavior

Contrasting with the ultimate goals of the terminal set, instrumental values pertain to the character traits and specific behaviors deemed appropriate and necessary for achieving the desired end-states. These are not ends themselves, but rather the preferred means or methods of conduct. Rokeach categorized these 18 values into two sub-groups: moral values (e.g., honesty, forgiveness) and competence values (e.g., ambition, capability). Moral values primarily focus on interpersonal conduct and are relevant when interacting with others, often leading to feelings of guilt or shame if violated. Competence values, conversely, are focused on personal adequacy and self-improvement, typically resulting in feelings of inadequacy or mastery rather than moral censure.

The crucial function of instrumental values is their role in mediating the pursuit of terminal values. For example, if a person highly values “A Sense of Accomplishment” (Terminal), they would likely prioritize instrumental values such as “Ambitious” and “Capable” to ensure the successful realization of that goal. If, however, they prioritize “Inner Harmony,” they might emphasize “Forgiving” and “Self-Controlled.” The consistency between an individual’s ranked instrumental and terminal values reveals the coherence of their overall value system and provides insight into their self-perception regarding their ethical and behavioral standards.

The 18 instrumental values demand that participants reflect on their ethical and behavioral preferences. The complete list includes:

• Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring)
• Broad-Minded (open-minded)
• Capable (competent, effective)
• Cheerful (joyful, happy)
• Clean (neat, tidy)
• Courageous (standing up for your beliefs)
• Forgiving (willing to pardon others)
• Helpful (working for the welfare of others)
• Honest (sincere, truthful)
• Imaginative (daring, creative)
• Independent (self-reliant, self-sufficient)
• Intellectual (intelligent, reflective)
• Logical (consistent, rational)
• Loving (affectionate, tender)
• Obedient (dutiful, respectful)
• Polite (courteous, well-mannered)
• Responsible (dependable, reliable)
• Self-Controlled (restrained, disciplined)

Administering the RVS: The Ranking Methodology

The administration of the Rokeach Value Survey is characterized by its forced-choice ranking methodology, a feature that distinguishes it from rating scales where respondents might assign high scores to every item. The task for participants is clear and demanding: they must arrange the 18 terminal values cards, followed by the 18 instrumental values cards, into an order that reflects their personal importance “as guiding principles in YOUR life.” This ranking process, typically from 1 (most important) to 18 (least important), is essential because it captures the relative trade-offs and priorities inherent in a functional value system.

By forcing a ranking rather than allowing multiple high scores, the RVS ensures that the resulting data reflects a true hierarchy of importance, recognizing that resources—such as time, energy, and attention—are finite and necessitate choices between competing values. For example, a respondent cannot simultaneously rank “A Comfortable Life” and “An Exciting Life” as equally important; they must decide which goal serves as the stronger guiding principle. This methodology yields ordinal data that is highly stable and resistant to social desirability bias compared to absolute rating scales.

The quantitative data generated by this ranking is then analyzed using statistical methods, often focusing on mean rankings or comparing the distribution of ranks across different populations. The mean rank assigned to a specific value allows researchers to determine its collective importance within a group (e.g., comparing the priority of “Equality” among political liberals versus conservatives). The robustness of this simple ranking procedure is a primary reason the RVS has maintained its utility for decades in cross-cultural and longitudinal studies aimed at charting societal and personal value changes.

A Practical Application of RVS in Career Choice

To illustrate the practical utility of the Rokeach Value Survey, consider the real-world scenario of a recent university graduate deciding between two job offers: one in a high-paying, high-stress corporate finance position, and another in a lower-paying, community-focused non-profit organization. The RVS can provide clarity by revealing the underlying values guiding this complex decision, moving beyond superficial factors like salary.

The application begins by examining the graduate’s ranked terminal values. If the graduate ranks “A Comfortable Life” and “Social Recognition” as their top two terminal values, the high-paying corporate job aligns perfectly with these end-states, as it promises financial stability and public admiration. However, if the graduate ranks “A World at Peace” and “Helpfulness” (a related instrumental value) highly, the non-profit role, despite its financial limitations, offers a superior pathway to achieving the desired self-image and contribution to society.

Furthermore, the graduate’s instrumental values determine how they approach the chosen path. If they select the corporate route, they will likely rely heavily on instrumental values like “Ambitious” and “Capable” to climb the corporate ladder. Conversely, choosing the non-profit requires reliance on instrumental values such as “Loving” and “Responsible,” which facilitate collaboration and client care. The RVS thus acts as a diagnostic tool, helping individuals achieve congruence between their deepest desires (terminal values) and their chosen behaviors (instrumental values), leading to greater job satisfaction and reduced internal conflict.

Significance, Impact, and Contemporary Use of RVS

The Rokeach Value Survey holds immense significance within the field of social psychology and beyond, primarily because it offered one of the first reliable, empirically testable models for measuring abstract human motivation. Its impact stems from its ability to predict behavior and attitudes more effectively than many prior measures. By quantifying the hierarchy of values, researchers gained a powerful tool for understanding phenomena ranging from consumer purchasing habits to political voting patterns and cross-cultural communication challenges. The RVS demonstrated that differences in value systems often underpin seemingly inexplicable differences in attitudes and ideologies.

In contemporary practice, the RVS has been extensively utilized by psychologists, sociologists, and marketers. In organizational psychology, it helps identify potential conflicts when integrating employees from different corporate cultures, or it can be used in leadership development to ensure leaders’ values align with organizational missions. Marketers use RVS data to segment audiences based on deep-seated motivations, allowing for the creation of advertising campaigns that appeal directly to core values such as “Family Security” or “A Sense of Accomplishment.”

Despite its wide usage, researchers have engaged in ongoing efforts to refine the RVS structure. There have been numerous attempts, for example by Feather and Peay (1975) and Johnston (1995), to reduce the 36 items into a smaller set of underlying factors or dimensions using factor analysis. However, achieving consistent success in this reduction has proven difficult, largely due to the specific, distinct nature of Rokeach’s item selection. Nonetheless, the RVS remains a benchmark instrument, often serving as the foundation against which newer, more complex value theories are tested and compared, cementing its historical importance.

Theoretical Connections and Placement within Psychology

The Rokeach Value Survey belongs fundamentally to the subfield of **Social Psychology**, but it also has strong ties to **Personality Psychology** and **Cross-Cultural Psychology**. Its placement is due to its focus on how stable cognitive structures (values) influence social interaction, attitude formation, and individual behavioral consistency. Rokeach’s work helped formalize the study of values as a distinct area of psychological inquiry, separate from the study of needs (like Maslow’s Hierarchy) or traits (like the Big Five).

Perhaps the most significant theoretical connection is its relationship to the work of Shalom Schwartz, specifically the development of the Theory of Basic Values. Schwartz, building upon Rokeach’s pioneering distinction between terminal and instrumental values, developed a more circular, dynamic model that organizes values into ten basic motivational types (e.g., self-direction, security, universalism). While the Schwartz Value Survey (SVS) and the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) are now often used in large-scale cross-cultural research due to their emphasis on motivational theory, they owe a direct intellectual debt to the structural framework established by Milton Rokeach and his RVS.

The RVS provided the necessary empirical structure to test hypotheses about value change and stability, particularly in response to social influence and education. It demonstrated that value systems are not merely random collections of preferences but are integrated, hierarchical organizations that function as internal standards for self-evaluation and moral judgment. This contribution solidified the RVS’s place as a cornerstone in the psychological study of motivation, ethics, and human decision-making, setting the stage for decades of subsequent research into the fundamental drivers of human behavior.