Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

Abstract

The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) is a prominent psychometric instrument designed to measure core human values, encompassing both religious and nonreligious beliefs. It is structured to be culturally diverse and applicable across various settings. The survey comprises a total of 36 values, which are categorized into two fundamental types: 18 Terminal values, representing desired end-states of existence, and 18 Instrumental values, representing preferred modes of conduct.

The development of the RVS involved an extensive review of literature and an inductive process of collecting and refining value lists from diverse groups. Rokeach and his associates reduced the initial pool of values based on criteria such as eliminating synonyms, maximizing differences between items, ensuring cultural relevance, and retaining values that respondents could admit to without appearing boastful. Methodologically, 18 was determined to be the maximum number of items a person could reasonably rank-order effectively. Respondents complete the RVS by ranking both the 18 terminal values and the 18 instrumental values separately, according to their importance as guiding principles in life.

Keywords

Rokeach Value Survey, RVS, Milton Rokeach, Human values, Terminal values, Instrumental values, Value system, Rank-ordering, Social psychology, Psychometrics

Authors

Milton Rokeach

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Rokeach Value Survey is to quantify and measure an individual’s general system of human values. By requiring respondents to rank-order values, the RVS reveals hierarchical preferences that guide behavior and judgment, providing insight into an individual’s underlying belief structure.

The RVS is most appropriately used to develop comparative group data and to study changes in value systems over time or across different cultural or social groups. Due to its ipsative nature (rank ordering), the survey is less useful for individual assessment or evaluation, as the ranking of each item is mathematically dependent on the ranking of all other items in that set.

Construct

The RVS is founded on Rokeach’s definition of a value (1973) as a prescriptive or proscriptive belief that a specific mode of behavior or end-state of existence is preferred over an opposite mode or end-state. This construct is segmented into two distinct, yet interrelated, categories that represent the distinction between means and ends.

• Terminal Values: These represent desired end-states of existence (e.g., a comfortable life, wisdom, salvation). They reflect the goals a person hopes to achieve during their lifetime.
• Instrumental Values: These represent preferred modes of conduct (e.g., independent, obedient, self-controlled). They reflect the desirable ways of behaving necessary to reach the terminal goals.

Rokeach hypothesized that while the total universe of possible human values is large, the average person holds a relatively small, manageable collection, estimated around 18 to 24 terminal values and 60 to 72 instrumental values, though the RVS uses a fixed set of 18 for each category.

Validity

The RVS is recognized for possessing high face validity, meaning the items appear, on the surface, to measure the construct of human values directly and relevantly. Although Rokeach did not extensively address traditional psychometric validity measures, he provided important comparative data to support the instrument’s utility.

Research has demonstrated connections between RVS results and other psychological measures. Specifically, correlations were observed between certain RVS values and variations of needs as measured by the TAT (Thematic Apperception Test), suggesting a similarity between the measured constructs of values and needs. Furthermore, studies (e.g., Homant, 1969) connected the RVS to Osgood’s evaluative factor within a semantic differential analysis, indicating that the RVS measures the same kind of meaning as Osgood’s evaluative dimension.

Reliability

Extensive research has been conducted on the reliability of the RVS, which utilizes the test-retest reliability method, often comparing two specific forms: Form D (sticker version) and Form E (paper/pencil version).

• Form D Reliability: For college students, median test-retest reliabilities over a 3 to 7-week interval ranged from .78 to .80 for terminal values and .70 to .72 for instrumental values. Longer intervals (2 to 4 months) typically saw a slight drop of .03 to .05 in coefficients.
• Form E Reliability: Reliability for Form E is slightly lower, reporting coefficients of .74 for terminal values and .65 for instrumental values.

Rokeach attributes the superior reliability of Form D to its methodology: the use of removable stickers allows the respondent to physically re-sort and adjust the value rankings until they are completely satisfied with the final order, whereas Form E requires crossing out and rewriting, which may discourage extensive revision. Crucially, terminal value reliabilities are consistently higher than instrumental value reliabilities across both forms.

Factor Analysis

Traditional factor analysis is not the primary mechanism for interpreting the RVS due to its forced-choice, ipsative ranking methodology. Because the subject is required to rank-order all 18 values within each category (terminal and instrumental), the ranking of each individual value is inherently interdependent with all others. If one value’s rank is adjusted, the corresponding ranks of all other values must also shift. Consequently, interpretation relies heavily on medians, composite rank orders, and frequency distributions, rather than mean scores, although other statistical measures such as t-tests, ANOVAs, and the Kruskal-Wallis test have been used successfully, showing high consistency with median-based results.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report inventory; Ipsative Value Ranking Scale

Format: The RVS exists primarily in two reliable forms: Form D (removable stickers/cards used for physical sorting and ranking) and Form E (standard paper-and-pencil version where numbers 1–18 are written next to the value).

Language Available: English (Original); widely used in cross-cultural research, implying translation into numerous languages.

Population Group: General population; applicable across diverse cultural settings.

Age Group: Data reported for age groups ranging from 11 to 90 years old.

Population Details: The survey consists of 36 items: 18 Terminal values and 18 Instrumental values. Completion time typically ranges from 10 to 20 minutes.

Test Methodology: The subject is presented with the list of values and asked to rank them from high to low according to “their importance to you as guiding principles in your life.” This procedure is repeated separately for the terminal and instrumental value sets.

Keywords

Psychological assessment, Value hierarchy, Social class, Cross-cultural comparisons, NORC, Form D, Form E, Test reliability, Face validity, Medians

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Information not provided in source.

Affiliation Email addresses: Information not provided in source.

Correspondence Address: Information not provided in source.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The definitive documentation and test details are found in Milton Rokeach’s 1973 book, The Nature of Human Values. The test was historically available for order from: Consulting Psychologists Press, Inc., 3803 E. Bayshore Road., P.O. Box 10096, Palo Alto, CA 94303.

Test Year: 1973 (Definitive publication and standardization).

Reference’s

• Allen, M.W. (1994). Reliability and accuracy of cultural-level judgments of personal values. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 16-18.
• Conoley, J. C., & Impara, J. C. (1995). The twelfth mental measurements yearbook. Lincoln University of Nebraska Press.
• Diessner, R., Mayton, D., & Dolen, M.A. (1993). Values hierarchies and moral reasoning. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 869-871.
• Faase, T. P. (1982). International differences in value ranking and religious style among Jesuits. Review of Religious Research, 24, 3-18.
• Feather, N. T. (1973). Value change among university students. Australian Journal of Psychology, 25, 57-70.
• Feather, N.T. (1988). Moral judgements and human values. British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 239-246.
• Gibbons, K., & Walker, I. (1993). Multiple interpretations of the Rokeach Value Survey. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133, 797-805.
• Homant, R. (1969). Semantic differential ratings and rank-ordering of values. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29, 885-889.
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.
• Thompson, B., Leviton, J. E., & Mieden, P. A. (1982) Validity of the Rokeach Value Survey. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 42, 899-905.

Items of the ROKEACH VALUE SURVEY (RVS)

IMPORTANT: The following scale items must be preserved in their original language and must not be changed in any way.

The RVS includes 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values. The respondent ranks these values according to their importance as guiding principles in life.

Examples of Terminal Values (End-States of Existence):

• a comfortable life
• salvation
• wisdom
• etc.

Examples of Instrumental Values (Modes of Conduct):

• independent
• obedient
• self-controlled
• etc.