This circular structure can be summarized in two general dimensions. The first contrasts self-transcendence values (benevolence and universalism), which express the motivation for care for others including nature, with self-enhancement values (power, achievement, and sometimes hedonism), which express the motivation for satisfying self-interests. The second dimension contrasts openness to change values (self-direction, stimulation, and sometimes hedonism), which express the motivation for novelty, with conservation values (tradition, conformity, and security), which express the motivation for stability and certainty. The contents and structure of values have been extensively validated in cross-cultural research across hundreds of samples from nearly 100 countries around the world (reviewed in Sagiv & Schwartz, 2022). Later, a refined-values theory has been established, distinguishing between 19 narrower values (Schwartz et al., 2012).

​

Personal values were found to be directly associated with stress (Bouckenooghe et al., 2005) as well as with its potential antecedents and consequences, such as emotions (Tamir et al., 2016), worries and perceived threats (Schwartz et al., 2000), well-being and satisfaction with life (Sagiv et al., 2015). Conservation values, especially security, are particularly sensitive to external threats, demonstrating a substantial increase following the terror attacks of 9/11 (Verkasalo et al., 2006), exposure to war (Daniel et al., 2013), financial crisis (Sortheix et al., 2019), and the COVID-19 pandemic and especially in those who worried about it (Daniel et al., 2022). 

​

Measurement

A detailed discussion on measuring and priming values is available in Roccas et al. (2017). Following are brief descriptions of the most commonly used scales of personal values which have been validated in many countries.

​

1. Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1992). The SVS comprises 56 or 57 abstract values followed by a brief description, of which 44 have near universal equivalence of meaning and are thus included in value indexes. Participants are instructed to indicate the importance of each value as a guiding principle in their life using a 9-point asymmetric scale, ranging from -1 (opposed to my values), through 0 (not important at all) and 3 (important), to 7 (of supreme importance). 

2. Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ, Schwartz et al., 2001). The PVQ comprises 40 gender-specific descriptions of a hypothetical individual. Participants are instructed to indicate the extent to which each description portrays a person like them on a 6-point scale, ranging from 1 (not like me at all) to 6 (very much like me). There is also a short version of it, the PVQ-21 (Schwartz, 2005), which has been used in the open-access European Social Survey (visit https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org).

3. Portrait Value Questionnaire - Refined (Schwartz et al., 2012; PVQ-RR, Schwartz, 2017). The PVQ-RR resembles the original PVQ scale but comprises 57 items to capture the refined 19 narrower values: Benevolence-Dependability, Benevolence-Caring, Universalism-Tolerance, Universalism-Concern, Universalism-Nature, Humility, Conformity-Interpersonal, Conformity-Rules, Tradition, Security-Societal, Security-Personal, Face, Power-Resources, Power-Dominance, Achievement, Hedonism, Stimulation, Self-Direction-Action, Self-Direction-Thought.

 

The SVS is a more abstract scale, whereas both PVQ and PVQ-RR are more concrete scales. As such, PVQ(-RR) could be more suitable for a less educated population, non-native language speakers, or populations that have less experience with questionnaires in general (e.g., adolescence). The PVQ-RR has the best internal reliabilities. Although it has more items than the PVQ, because each item has only one sentence, people find it easier and quicker to answer relative to the PVQ-40. The PVQ-21 has an advantage of being substantially shorter than other scales but can suffer from lower internal reliabilities and should be used mainly when it is sufficient to measure the 4 broader values. 

 

Recommendations

1. When administering value questionnaires, it is highly recommended to use the entire scale or at least ensure some items from each of the 4 broadest values. This is because all values are positive and measuring just one value results with high importances and less variance, consequently reducing its predictive power. Furthermore, comparison of different values helps responders realize the relative importance of different values as a system (Roccas et al., 2017).

2. To account for individual tendences in the scale use, it is highly recommended to control for the mean value scores as individuals differ in these, and this tendency tends to lead to weaker negative correlations (see Borg & Bardi, 2016; Schwartz, 2012). This can be done by controlling for the mean value score across all items or by ipsatizing (centering) value scores prior to analyses. To ipsatize values, for each participant, all value items should be first averaged, and then the average subtracted from each of the ten values. 

3. It is recommended to administer value questionnaires at the beginning of a survey. Values are broad constructs, and their questionnaires assess the entire motivational continuum. They are thus unlikely to prime other constructs measured afterwards, whereas measuring another construct before values may affect value responses, priming a particular value (Roccas et al., 2017).    

 

Limitations/Strengths

Strengths. The SVS, PVQ, and PVQ-RR have been extensively validated in cross-cultural research, demonstrating high cultural equivalence as well as high content, structural, and predictive validity. They have been translated to multiple languages (for instructions and translations, visit https://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol2/iss2/9/; Schwartz, 2021). In addition, these questionnaires cover the broad range of personal values, enabling examination of the relationships between a focal construct and the full spectrum of universal motivations. 

 

Limitations. The SVS, PVQ, and PVQ-RR are somewhat lengthy and require substantial cognitive effort. In addition, because of the broad nature of personal values, some values may have a Cronbach’s alpha reliability below the common standard of > .70 (discussed in Davidov et al., 2008). 

 

Existing Gaps in the Field: Additional Measures

There are other value questionnaires that  measure this theory, including the 10-item Short and Broad Value Survey (SBVS, Sekerdej & Roccas, 2016); the Picture-Based Value Survey (PBVS-C, Döring et al., 2010), which uses pictures accompanied by captions, and the Animated Values Instrument (AVI, Collins et al., 2017), which uses 3-5 second animations, to assess the ten value types among young children; the Schwartz Value Best-Worst Survey (SVBWS), in which participants are instructed to choose the most and the least important value from several subsets of values (Lee et al., 2008), which has a refined-values version (Lee et al., 2019); and a few others. While the aforementioned scales are still the most commonly used in research on values, scholars may consider employing other scales that are better aligned with their research questions, experimental designs, or/and focal population. For example, whereas the Best-Worst Refined Values Scale (Lee et al., 2019) has so far been validated only in English, it is the only measure that empirically confirmed the entire theoretical refined-values structure suggested in Schwartz et al. (2012). Additionally, the pictorial measure for children (Döring et al., 2010) can only be used with confidence where it has already been validated as it should be adapted to the culture before use (for validation in multiple cultures and delivery modes see Döring et al., 2015; Maslamani et al., 2026). This measure has been used successfully from age 6 (e.g., Scholz-Kuhn, et al., 2023), but from age 11 onwards the PVQ measure has been used successfully (Berson & Oreg, 2016; Vecchione et al., 2016).

​

Acceptance-Commitment Therapy (ACT, Hayes et al., 2006), has a different approach to values, and its measures focus on how much people feel that they behave according to their values (“valued living”, see systematic review in Barrett et al., 2019). Findings suggest a negative link of valued living with stress, but longitudinal studies find prediction from stress to later valued living but not from valued living to later stress (Grégoire et al., 2021).

​

​

 Author(s) and Reviewer(s): Prepared by Andrey Elster, PhD., and Anat Bardi, PhD. Reviewed by Ariel Knafo-Noam, PhD., and Julie Lee, PhD. Please direct suggestions and feedback to Dr. Bardi (anat.bardi@rhul.ac.uk).

​

​

References

Bardi, A., Rea, J., & Levontin, L. (2025). Biculturals’ personal value change in everyday intercultural movements.  International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 109, 102312. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijintrel.2025.102312

​

Barrett, K., O’Connor, M., & McHugh, L. (2019). A systematic review of values-based psychometric tools within acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT). The Psychological Record, 69(4), 457-485.

Berson, Y., & Oreg, S. (2016). The role of school principals in shaping children’s values. Psychological Science, 27(12), 1539-1549. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616670147

​

Borg, I., & Bardi, A. (2016). Should ratings of the importance of personal values be centered?. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 95-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.05.011

​

Bouckenooghe, D., Buelens, M., Fontaine, J., & Vanderheyden, K. (2005). The prediction of stress by values and value conflict. The Journal of Psychology, 139(4), 369-384. https://doi.org/10.3200/JRLP.139.4.369-384

​

Collins, P. R., Lee, J. A., Sneddon, J. N., & Döring, A. K. (2017). Examining the consistency and coherence of values in young children using a new Animated Values Instrument. Personality and Individual Differences, 104, 279-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.08.024

​

Daniel, E., Bardi, A., Fischer, R., Benish-Weisman, M., & Lee, J. A. (2022). Changes in personal values in pandemic times. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 572-582. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211024026

​

Daniel E., Fortuna K., Thrun S. K., Cioban S., Knafo A. (2013). Brief report: Early adolescents’ value development at war time. Journal of Adolescence, 36(4), 651-655. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.03.009

​

Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72(3), 420-445. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfn035

​

Döring, A. K., Blauensteiner, A., Aryus, K., Drögekamp, L., & Bilsky, W. (2010). Assessing values at an early age: The picture-based value survey for children (PBVS–C). Journal of Personality Assessment, 92(5), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2010.497423

​

Döring, A. K., Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Groenen, P. J., Glatzel, V., Harasimczuk, J., Janowicz, N., Nyagolova, M., Scheefer, E. R., Allritz, M., & Bilsky, W., & Milfont, T. L. (2015). Cross-cultural evidence of value structures and priorities in childhood. British Journal of Psychology, 106(4), 675–699. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12116

​

Grégoire, S., Doucerain, M., Morin, L., & Finkelstein-Fox, L. (2021). The relationship between value-based actions, psychological distress and well-being: A multilevel diary study. Journal of Contextual Behavioral Science, 20, 79–88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcbs.2021.03.006

​

Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour research and therapy, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006

​

Knafo-Noam, A., Daniel, E., & Benish-Weisman, M. (2024). The development of values in middle childhood: Five maturation criteria. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 33(1), 18-26. https://doi.org/10.1177/09637214231205865

​

Lee, J. A., Sneddon, J. N., Daly, T. M., Schwartz, S. H., Soutar, G. N., & Louviere, J. J. (2019). Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best–worst scaling approach. Assessment, 26(2), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191116683799

​

Lee, J. A., Soutar, G., & Louviere, J. (2008). The best–worst scaling approach: An alternative to Schwartz’s values survey. Journal of Personality Assessment, 90(4), 335-347. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223890802107925

​

Leijen, I., van Herk, H., & Bardi, A. (2022). Individual and generational value change in an adult population, a 12-year longitudinal panel study. Scientific Reports, 12: 17844, 1-12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-22862-1

​

Maslamani, A., Daniel, E., Döring, A. K., Hart, Y., Nasser, I., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2026). A multilingual app for studying children’s developing values: Introducing a new Arabic translation of the picture-based values survey and comparison of Palestinian and Jewish children in Israel. Developmental Psychology, 62(1), 200–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001957

​

Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Navon, M. (2017). Methodological issues in studying personal values. In S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 15-50). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_2

​

Sagiv, L., Roccas, S., & Oppenheim‐Weller, S. (2015). Values and well‐being. In S. Joseph (Ed.) Positive psychology in practice: Promoting human flourishing in work, health, education, and everyday life (pp. 103-120). New York, NY: John Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118996874.ch7

​

Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 517-546. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-020821-125100

​

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. (2005). Human values. European Social Survey Education Net. Retrieved from https://www.europeansocialsurvey.org

​

Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An Overview of the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1). http://dx.doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116

​

Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.), Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective (pp. 51-72). Cham: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56352-7_3

​

Schwartz, S. H. (2021). A repository of Schwartz Value Scales with instructions and an introduction. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(2). https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1173

​

Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., Ramos, A., Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Demirutku, K., Dirilen-Gumus, O., & Konty, M. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663-688. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029393

​

Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 519-542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022101032005001

​

Schwartz, S. H., Sagiv, L., & Boehnke, K. (2000). Worries and values. Journal of Personality, 68(2), 309-346. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.00099

​

Sekerdej, M., & Roccas, S. (2016). Love versus loving criticism: Disentangling conventional and constructive patriotism. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55(3), 499-521. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12142

​

Scholz-Kuhn, R., Makarova, E., Bardi, A., & Döring, A. K. (2023). The relationship between young children’s personal values and their teacher-rated behaviors in the classroom. Frontiers in Education, 8, 1162335. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2023.1162335

​

Sortheix F. M., Parker P. D., Lechner C. M., Schwartz S. H. (2019). Changes in young Europeans’ values during the global financial crisis. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(1), 15-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617732610

​

Tamir, M., Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Riediger, M., Torres, C., Scollon, C., Dzokoto, V., Zhou, X., & Vishkin, A. (2016). Desired emotions across cultures: A value-based account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 111(1), 67-82. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000072

​

Twito, L., & Knafo-Noam, A. (2020). Beyond culture and the family: Evidence from twin studies on the genetic and environmental contribution to values. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 112, 135-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.029

​

Vecchione, M., Schwartz, S., Alessandri, G., Döring, A. K., Castellani, V., & Caprara, M. G. (2016). Stability and change of basic personal values in early adulthood: An 8-year longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 63, 111-122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.06.002

​

Verkasalo M., Goodwin R., Bezmenova I. (2006). Values following a major terrorist incident: Finnish adolescent and student values before and after September 11, 2001. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(1), 144-160. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00007.x

​