Shalom H.
Schwartz
Scoring and Analysis Instructions
For a presentation of the theory underlying the PVQ-RR and validating data, see Schwartz, et
al. (2012), Schwartz & Butenko (2014), Schwartz et al. (2016) in references. For instructions
for different types of statistical analysis, see below ‘correcting for scale use bias’.
Scoring Key for 19 Values in the PVQ-RR Value Scale
Self-direction Thought 1,23,39 Tradition 18,33,40
Self-direction Action 16,30,56 Conformity-Rules 15,31,42
Stimulation 10,28,43 Conformity-Interpersonal 4,22,51
Hedonism 3,36,46 Humility 7,38,54
Achievement 17,32,48 Universalism-Nature 8,21,45
Power Dominance 6,29,41 Universalism-Concern 5,37,52
Power Resources 12,20,44 Universalism-Tolerance 14,34,57
Face 9,24,49 Benevolence –Care 11,25,47
Security Personal 13,26,53 Benevolence-Dependability 19,27,55
Security Societal 2,35,50
Scoring Key for 10 Original Values with the PVQ-RR Value Scale
Self-Direction 1,23,39,16,30,56 Security 13,26,53,2,35,50
Stimulation 10,28,43 Conformity 15,31,42,4,22,51
Hedonism 3,36,46 Tradition 18,33,40,7,38,54
Achievement 17,32,48 Benevolence 11,25,47,19,27,55
Power 6,29,41,12,20,44 Universalism 8,21,45,5,37,52,14,34,57
___________________________________________________________________________
Scoring Key for Higher Order Values in the PVQ-RR Value Scale
Self-Transcendence Combine means for universalism-nature, universalism-concern,
universalism-tolerance, benevolence-care, and benevolence-
dependability
Self-Enhancement Combine means for achievement, power dominance and power
resources
Openness to change Combine means for self-direction thought, self-direction action,
stimulation and hedonism
Conservation Combine means for security-personal, security-societal, tradition,
conformity-rules, conformity-interpersonal
Humility and Face may also be included in conservation, if no structural analysis is done to
check their location in your own sample. Alternatively, they could be treated as separate
values.
Shalom H. Schwartz
Correcting for scale use biases
The score for each value is the mean of the raw ratings given to the items listed above for
that value. For most purposes, it is necessary to make a correction for individual
differences in use of the response scale before performing analyses. Below are
instructions for making the correction that is appropriate to various types of analyses.
Failure to make the necessary scale use correction typically leads to mistaken
conclusions!
Individuals and cultural groups differ in their use of the response scale.1 Scale use
differences often distort findings and lead to incorrect conclusions.2 To correct for scale
use:
(A) Compute scores for the 19 values by taking the means of the items that index it
(above). If you wish to check internal reliabilities, do so for these value scores before the
next steps.
(B) Compute each individual’s mean score across all 57 value items. This is the
individual’s Mean RATing of all values. Call this MRAT.3
(C) Subtract MRAT from each of the 19 value scores. This centers the scores of each of
the the individual’s 19 values (computed in A) around that individual’s Mean Rating.
1. For correlation analyses: Use the centered value scores (C).
2. For group mean comparisons, analysis of variance or of covariance (t- tests, ANOVA,
MANOVA, ANCOVA, MANCOVA): Use the centered value scores as the dependent
variables.
3. For regression:
a. If the value is your dependent variable, use the centered value score.
b. If the values are predictor variables:
1. Enter uncentered values as predictors in the regression.
a’ If all 19 values are included, the single regression coefficients for
the values are not clearly meaningful and interpretable
because the values are interdependent. This is so even if the
multicolinearity statistics do not look problematic.
b’ Choose the values to exclude as predictors a priori on theoretical
grounds because they are irrelevant to the topic.
2. If you are interested only in the total variance accounted for by
values and not in the regression coefficients, you may include all 19
uncentered values as predictors. The R2 is meaningful but, because
the 19 values are exactly linearly dependent, the coefficients for each
value are not precisely interpretable.
3. If you use only one value as a predictor, use the centered value
because this is equivalent to correlation.
c. In publications, it is advisable to provide a table with the correlations between
the centered values and the dependent variables in addition to any
regression. These correlations will aid in understanding results and reduce
confusion due either to multicolinearity or to intercorrelations among the
values.
Shalom H. Schwartz
4. For multidimensional scaling, both centered and uncentered item responses work
equally well.
5. For canonical, discriminant, or confirmatory factor analyses:
Use raw (uncentered) value scores for the items or 19 value means.4 However, if only
some of the 57 items are included, centered scores can be used
6. Exploratory factor analysis is not suitable for discovering the theorized set of relations
among values because they form a quasi-circumplex, which EFA does not reveal. Factors
obtained in an EFA with rotation will only partly overlap with the 19 values, combining
them to form larger factors, and will exploit chance associations. The first unrotated
factor represents the way respondents use the response scale. It may represent an
acquiescence bias, social desirability, the overall importance of values to the person, or
some combination of these and other influences . It does not represent specific value
preferences. A crude representation of the circular structure of values can be obtained
using EFA by plotting the value items in a two-dimensional space according to their
loadings on factors 2 and 3 of the unrotated solution.
Footnotes
1. For a discussion of the general issue, see Saris (1988). Schwartz, et al. (1997) examine
meanings of such scale use as an individual difference variable. Smith (2004) discusses
correlates of scale use differences at the level of cultures.
2. Two critical assumptions underlie these corrections.
(1) The motivational circle captured by the set of 19 individual level values is
reasonably comprehensive of the full motivational space of values recognized across
individuals and cultural groups. Empirical evidence supports this assumption (Schwartz,
1992, 2004).
(2) Studies of value priorities are concerned with the importance of particular values
as part of the value system of a person or group. This is because the way values affect
cognition, emotion, and behavior is through a trade-off or balancing among multiple values
that are simultaneously relevant to a decision or action. The relevant values often have
opposing implications for the decision or action. The absolute importance of a single value
across individuals or across groups ignores the fact that values function as a system
(Schwartz, 1996, 2006). The scale use correction converts absolute value scores into scores
that indicate the relative importance of each value in the value system, i.e., the individual’s
value priorities.
3. We center within person rather than standardizing (i.e., we do not divide by individuals’
standard deviation across the 57 items). This is because individual differences in variances of
value ratings are usually meaningful. Even if, on average, individuals attribute the same mean
importance to the set of values, some individuals discriminate more sharply among their
values and others discriminate less sharply. Standardizing that makes everyone’s variance the
same (i.e., 1) would eliminate these real differences in the extent to which individuals
discriminate among their values.
4. Centering creates a small degree of linear dependence among the items. This may be
problematic in these analyses The scale use problem is avoided or eliminated by other aspects
of these analyses without centering. See Closs (1996) and Cornwell & Dunlop (1994).
Shalom H. Schwartz
References [starred are available as electronic files]
Closs, S. J. (1996). On the factoring and interpretation of ipsative data. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 69, 41-47.
Cornwell, J. M., & Dunlop, W. P. (1994). On the questionable soundness of factoring ipsative
data: A response to Saville and Willson (1991). Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 67, 89-100.
Saris, W. E. (Ed) (1988). Variation in response functions, A source of measurement error in
attitude research. Amsterdam: Sociometric Research Foundation.
*Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theory and
empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25) (pp. 1-65). New York: Academic Press.
*Schwartz, S.H. (1996). Value priorities and behavior: Applying a theory of integrated value
systems. In C. Seligman, J.M. Olson, & M.P. Zanna (Eds.), The Psychology of Values: The
Ontario Symposium, Vol. 8 (pp.1-24). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
*Schwartz, S.H., Verkasalo, M., Antonovsky, A., & Sagiv, L. (1997). Value priorities and
social desirability: Much substance, some style. British Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 3-
18.
*Schwartz, S. H. (2003). A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations. Chapter
7 in the Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey. Website:
[Link].
*Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Les valeurs de base de la personne: Théorie, mesures et applications
[Basic human values: Theory, measurement, and applications]. Revue Française de
Sociologie, 47, 249-288.
*Schwartz, S. H., & Butenko, T. (2014). Values and behavior: Validating the refined value
theory in Russia. European Journal of Social Psychology,44, 719-813. ) DOI:
10.1002/ejsp.2053
*Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Torres, C., Dirilem-Gumus, O., & Butenko, T.
(in press, 2016). Value tradeoffs and behavior in four countries: Validating 19 refined values.
European Journal of Social Psychology
*Schwartz, S. H. (2017). The refined theory of basic values. In S. Roccas & L. Sagiv (Eds.),
Values and behavior: Taking a cross-cultural perspective, Springer.
*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, 663-688.
Smith, P. B. (2004). Acquiescent response bias as an aspect of cultural communications style.
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35, 50-61.