RESEARCH ARTICLE

Constructing Schwartz values framework using

the Rokeach values survey: Human value
measurement in the longitudinal internet survey
for social sciences
Oscar Smallenbroek *, Ingmar Leijen
1
, A. Stanciu
2 3
, Hester van Herk 2
, A. Bardi4

1 Joint Research Centre, European Commission, Ispra, Italy, 2 School of Business and Economics,
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 3 Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social
Sciences (FHSE), University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg, 4 Department of Psychology,
Royal Holloway University of London, Egham, England

* [Link]@[Link]

Abstract
This paper assesses and validates indexes of human values as conceptualized in
the Schwartz framework using the Rokeach Value Survey in the publicly available
LISS panel data ([Link]), thereby opening an avenue for researchers to
OPEN ACCESS relate values to a wide range of attitudes, traits, and behaviors with the most widely
Citation: Smallenbroek O, Leijen I, Stanciu used and tested values theory. We start with a theoretical screening of the value
A, van Herk H, Bardi A (2025) Constructing items, after which we use multi-dimensional scaling to assess the item’s correlation
Schwartz values framework using the Rokeach
values survey: Human value measurement
structure. We developed reliable and valid indexes for 8 of the 10 Schwartz values,
in the longitudinal internet survey for social of which universalism, achievement, benevolence, and conformity contain 3 or more
sciences. PLoS One 20(8): e0329179. https:// items, and self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, and security contain 1 or 2 items.
[Link]/10.1371/[Link].0329179
We assess the RVS-based indexes by comparing them with other Schwartz indexes
Editor: Shiming Hao, Hunan University, CHINA
in the World Value Survey and the European Social Survey data. Using regressions,
Received: October 23, 2024 all 8 values also show the expected relationships with demographics, political orien-
Accepted: July 11, 2025 tation, and personality traits. By tailoring the RVS to align with the Schwartz value
Published: August 12, 2025 structure, researchers can use a well-established framework for assessing human
Copyright: © 2025 Smallenbroek et al. This is values longitudinally and cross-sectionally, enabling better comparisons and insights
an open access article distributed under the across studies and time periods.
terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use,
distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original author and source are Introduction
credited.
The Schwartz [1] values framework is currently the most widely accepted and exten-
Data availability statement: The LISS data
sively studied theory and measurement of human values [2], leading researchers
cannot be shared publicly. All published data-
sets can be downloaded free of charge, under to favour it’s measurement instruments over earlier instruments—even though the
the condition that it is used for non-commercial latter could still yield valuable insights, particularly given the large amount of existing
scientific or policy-relevant purposes only. data. One such measure is the Rokeach Values Survey [3] which has been used for
Data are available from Tilburg University's
since 2008 in the Longitudinal Internet Survey for Social Sciences [4] – an ongoing

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 1 / 20

CentreData and can be accessed after regis- longitudinal survey based on a representative Dutch sample. This paper establishes
tering at [Link] Users must
indexes of the Schwartz [1] values with items from the Rokeach Value Survey,
sign a LISS data user statement confirming
agreement with the rules and conditions. The thereby enabling use of this source within the widely validated conceptualizations of
European Social Survey data is held in a public the Schwartz values theory [1].
repository can be downloaded at the following Establishing a meaningful link between the RVS items and the Schwartz values
address: [Link]
(Table 1) can provide many researchers a rich panel dataset containing over 10,000
Funding: The author(s) received no specific respondents aged 16 + covering 2008 to the present in the Netherlands. The LISS is
funding for this work.
a high-quality open source, nationally representative panel covering personality, polit-
Competing interests: The authors have ical behavior and attitudes as well as a range of economic and demographic topics.
declared that no competing interests exist.
It includes high-quality documentation in English. Hence, it provides a great source
to study how and when values change as well as value’s relationship with emotions,
personality traits, subjective well-being, political affiliation and voting choice. The
LISS also includes many one-off questionnaires requested by researchers which
add to this rich panel data and address current issues such as attitudes on gender
equality, climate change, the green energy transition, population aging, nationalism,
populism and democracy, immigration and others. In fact, the LISS data covers most
topics in the values literature, as identified by Schwartz and Sagiv [1].
The Rokeach Values Survey [3] is still in use today (e.g., [5–9]). It is widely used
for assessing human values in work related assessments (e.g., [10]), marketing
and advertising (e.g., [11]), social psychology (reviewed in [12]), and cross-cultural
research (e.g., [13]). However, it has long been considered an outdated instrument
since Schwartz and Bilsky [14,15] developed a theory of the contents and structure
of values using a multinational sample and created a well validated framework that
has been widely adopted [16,17]. These seminal papers established the Schwartz
values framework as the state-of-the-art, spurring on the development of several
instruments, initially heavily drawing on the RVS to eventually changing many items,
their presentation and scales (e.g., [18–22]). Nevertheless, the historical continuity
between the measurements suggests potential for a successful mapping of RVS
items onto the Schwartz framework. Hence, in this paper, we investigate which
items of the RVS in the LISS panel best represent the Schwartz values structure to
help researchers use one agreed way of allocating the RVS items in the LISS to the
Schwartz [23]values.

The evolution of the theory and measurement of human values from Rokeach
to Schwartz
The Rokeach Values Survey was developed in the 1970’s by the social psychologist
Milton Rokeach [3] building on previous work by [24] and [25].The RVS differentiates
between 18 terminal values (desired end-states of existence – the ultimate goals
that individuals aspire to achieve), and 18 instrumental values (preferable modes of
behavior that are means to achieve the terminal goals) which participants rank as
separate lists. Theoretically, a further distinction was made between personal goals
and social goals. Some of the items used in the RVS have been criticized, as they
are emotional states (e.g., ‘happiness’, ‘inner harmony’) while values are defined as
broad goals that guide people’s lives [16].

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 2 / 20

Table 1. Definitions of the Schwartz value types in the revised theory.
Value Definition
Self-direction Independent thought and action, choosing, creating, and exploring
Stimulation Excitement, novelty, and challenge in life
Hedonism Pleasure and sensuous gratification for oneself
Achievement Personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards
Power Social status and prestige, control or dominance over people and resources
Security Safety, harmony, and stability of society, relationships, and self
Tradition Respect of, commitment to, and acceptance of the customs and ideas that traditional
culture or religion provides
Conformity Restraint of actions, inclinations, and impulses likely to upset or harm others or violate
social expectations or norms
Benevolence Preservation and enhancement of the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent
personal contact
Universalism Understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people
and of nature

Note: Adapted from Sagiv and Schwartz (2022).

[Link]

Schwartz and Bilsky [15] used the RVS as a starting point to construct a novel theory underlying human values and
their relation to each other. According to this theory, human values developed from three basic needs, i.e., biological
needs, interaction requirements, and societal demands which can be categorized as having personal or social focused
goals and either anxiety-avoidance or growth motivation. Using Smallest-Space Analysis (a form of non-metric MDS), they
showed that human values form a circular structure of relations among values, such that values closer around the circle
are more positively correlated than distant values [23]. This structure had important implications, in that external variables
(e.g., attitudes, behavior) were correlated with the values according to the circle. Specifically, any external variable tends
to have similar correlations to neighboring values in the circle, while correlations with values opposite in the circle are in
the opposite direction. This insight greatly enhances our understanding of values as an evaluative system which is related
to phenomena by a value’s relative importance within the system and organized through opposing motivational forces
(growth-anxiety) and non-compatible goal contents (personal-social) (Fig 1).
From this seminal work came the Schwartz Values Survey (SVS [23]), validated in 20 countries. The first versions of
the SVS included all the items of the RVS, as well as new items to increase coverage of the circle (e.g., power, univer-
salism – nature, tradition), and rating as the measurement scale. Additionally, all items were accompanied with a short
explanation in parentheses, e.g., “FREEDOM (freedom of action and thought)”.
Further improvements, additions and alternative versions of the measurement instrument [17,27] showed the value
circle could also be observed using other methods. For example, the Portrait Values Questionnaire (PVQ) [18] is less
abstract and uses a rating scale. The PVQ includes 40 short descriptions of a person (instead of single words) and asks
respondents to compare themselves with the person in the description. This exercise greatly reduces cognitive load, com-
pared to evaluating abstract concepts such as “freedom”, and is currently the most used instrument.
Over time, various versions of the PVQ developed: using fine-grained division of the human values [28], a picture
based [29] and video clip based [30] versions for children, as well as a short version with 21 items for the European Social
Survey [31,32], a Best-Worst measure [19], and an 11-item version for the World Values Survey [33] among others. The
circular structure emerges using any of these questionnaires. Thus, while the measurement method has undergone
numerous refinements over the years, the assessment of the human values construct appears to be feasible using diverse
metrics.

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 3 / 20

Fig 1. The value circle as described in the theory of basic human values. Source: [26].

[Link]

The RVS in the LISS panel

There are distinct differences between the original RVS and the RVS instrument used in the LISS. It should be noted that
the RVS was developed and used primarily in the U.S.A. and English-speaking countries and was not translated to other
languages. This may create challenges when applying the RVS in a different cultural or linguistic context, as is the case
with the LISS, which is conducted in Dutch [34]. Consequently, some translations of the RVS items in the LISS can be
ambiguous or lose their original meaning. For instance, the original RVS item “Family Security” is simply translated to “de
familie” (i.e., “the family”) in Dutch, dropping any reference to security. The item “inner harmony” is translated literally but
it is not a common phrase or concept in Dutch language or culture, thus losing its intended significance. The results of the
current study are therefore mainly applicable to the RVS version used in the LISS.
Furthermore, despite the clear legacy of the RVS in the SVS, interpreting and comparing the results of the two instru-
ments can be challenging. While the RVS presented words for participants to rank, such as “Freedom”, the SVS also
added a clarification in parenthesis, “Freedom (freedom of action and thought)”. The term “Freedom” shown to participants
in the RVS without the qualifier “(freedom of action and thought)” as shown in the SVS, carries a broad range of potential
meanings and implications depending on the respondent’s perspective. Additionally, some RVS items appear in the SVS
as the main item and other times in parenthesis behind the main item. Thus, although both instruments use similar items,
there is no clear one-to-one correspondence.
Given the limitations of the RVS, we first conducted a theory-based assessment, matching the items to the descrip-
tions of the value types as proposed by Schwartz [23]. After excluding unsuitable items, we assigned each RVS item to

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 4 / 20

a provisional Schwartz value type, presented in Table 2. We then assess whether the RVS instrument in the LISS aligns
with the quasi-circumplex value structure defined by Schwartz using multidimensional scaling. Finally, we validated the
resulting value indexes by regressing them on socio-demographic variables, key value-related personality traits, and politi-
cal orientation. These results will allow researchers to establish a consistent and updated framework for assessing human
values in a longitudinal panel useful to many researchers, thereby improving the potential for meaningful comparisons and
insights across different studies.

Materials and methods

Participants
The data for this study come from two sources. The main source is the longitudinal internet study for social sciences
(LISS), an online panel of Dutch households managed by the non-profit research institute Centerdata [4]. The panel
was established in 2007 with a representative random sample of 10,000 households drawn from population registers by
Statistics Netherlands. Since then, the recruitment of replenishment samples maintained the representativeness and size
of the panel. An external ethics committee assesses each questionnaire. Participants are asked for informed consent
during recruitment (see [Link] Panel members completed online questionnaires on a variety of
topics each taking about 15–30 minutes in total every month and received a small fee for each completed questionnaire.
The RVS is asked annually. Additionally, the LISS includes cross-sectional questionnaires by sampling the longitudinal
panel participants. One of these cross-sectional questionnaires was the World Value Survey (WVS) [35] which included an
11-item version of the PVQ (PVQ-11).
The second source of data is the Dutch sample of the European Social Survey [36]. The ESS is a probability-based
and nationally representative cross-sectional survey. The ESS was established in 2001 and conducted bi-annually. The
ESS subscribes to the Declaration on Professional Ethics of the International Statistical Institute, which includes informed
consent, while the ESS ERIC Research Ethics Board assesses questionnaires.
We used these data sources to conduct an exploratory analysis and assess whether the indexes coincide with estab-
lished value measurement instruments. For exploratory analysis, we used the first wave of the LISS personality module,
the 2008 wave [34] (N = 6768) as it was the first in the LISS panel and therefore contains a representative sample of the
Dutch population.
In the assessment, we compared the ESS, the WVS and the LISS longitudinal panel data. Each dataset has strengths
and weaknesses. The ESS is a high-quality data source with a validated measurement, a 21-item version of the PVQ,
(PVQ-21) developed by Schwartz [37]. In contrast, the WVS administered the PVQ-11 which is known to have some
weaknesses, and in particular, the coverage of the value circle is limited [38]. Thus, differences between the PVQ-11 and
the RVS results could be due to covering different facets of the same value, while this should be less of an issue with the
PVQ-21 from the ESS. A weakness of the ESS is that it is an independent sample and survey, thus discrepancies with the
LISS data could be due to methodological differences. The WVS, on the other hand, was administered through the LISS
and therefore contains some of the same participants who went through an identical procedure to answer the PVQ-11 and
the RVS.
The WVS was collected in 2012 and to minimize confounding factors, we chose waves from the LISS and ESS
that were collected around the same time. Additionally, to facilitate comparison across samples and data sources, we
restricted the sample age range from 25 to 67. We chose this age range as there are greater changes in values earlier in
life while in middle adulthood value change slows down [5,39,40]. These less stable periods may affect relationships with
socio-demographic variables. The World Value Survey (WVS) of 2012 [41] includes 1,901 observations and 1,383 after
excluding cases of missing values and restricting the age range. In the LISS wave 2013 (N = 5,169) and after excluding
cases of missing values and restricting the age range, there were 3,651 cases. Lastly, the ESS wave 2012 (N = 1,845)
includes 1,321 cases after case selection.

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 5 / 20

Table 2. Rokeach value survey items, their translations and fit to Schwarz instrument and theoretical value type.
Dutch item Authors’ translationa Similar items in SVS or PVQ-21 Theoretical Schwartz (1992)
value type
eerlijk, oprecht Fair/honest, sincere SVS – Honest Benevolence
verantwoordelijk responsible SVS (excluded, BE/CO/UN) Benevolence or Conformityb
hard werkend hard working SVS - Ambitious (hardworking, aspiring) Conformity, Achievement, or
Self-direction
vergevingsgezind forgiving SVS - forgiving Benevolence
open Open could be applied to people or ideas. SVS – Broadminded Universalism/ Benevolence
moedig Courageous, meaning depends highly on None Achievement/Self-direction/
context. Stimulation
behulpzaam helpful PVQ-21 – helpful Benevolence
liefdevol Loving none Benevolence/ Universalism
competent Competent but multiple interpretations SVS – Capable Achievement
netjes Tidy, neat, proper. PVQ-21 – behave properly Tradition or Conformity
gedisciplineerd Disciplined, possible interpretation as SVS – Self-discipline Self-direction (disciplined in fol-
self-directed. lowing own goals) or Conformity
onafhankelijk independent PVQ-21 – independent Self-direction
vrolijk Cheerful, upbeat, happy none Excluded, emotion
beleefd Polite SVS – politeness Conformity
intellectueel Intellectual SVS – intelligent excluded (SD/UN/CO) Achievement
gehoorzaam Obedient PVQ-21 – follows rules Conformity
logisch, consistent Logical, consistent. SVS – intelligent (logical, thinking) excluded Achievement/ Self-direction
(SD/UN/CO)
creatief Creative PVQ-21 – Creative Self-direction
wereldvrede World peace SVS – a world at peace Universalism
het gezin The family SVS – excluded (CO/BE/AC) Excluded. Ambiguous meaning
vrijheid Personal freedom SVS – freedom Self-direction
gelijkheid Equality PVQ-21 – equality Universalism
zelfrespect Self-respect SVS Excluded (AC/UN/BE/SE) Excluded – not a value: attitude
geluk Luck or happiness or good fortune none Excluded – not a value: concept
or emotion
wijsheid Wisdom SVS – Wisdom Universalism
nationale veiligheid National security PVQ-21 – strong government Security
verlossing Salvation SVS – Devout Excluded. Religious or spiritu-
ality itemc
ware vriendschap True friendship Excluded from SVS (BE/UN/SE/TR/SD/AC) Benevolence
prestatie Achievement successful in PVQ-21 Achievement
innerlijke harmonie Inner harmony Excluded from SVS (BE/SE/TR/SD/ST) Universalism
comfortabel leven A comfortable life none Hedonism
liefde en seksualiteit Love and sexuality Excluded from SVS (BE/UN/SE/CO/TR) Excluded. Unclear meaning.
schoonheid Beauty SVS – a world of beauty Universalism
plezier Pleasure, having fun Pleasure in PVQ-21 Hedonism/ Stimulation
erkenning, status Recognition, status Excluded from SVS (PO/AC/SE) Power/ Achievement.
opwindend leven An exciting life Exciting life in PVQ-21 Stimulation
Note. UN = universalism, BE = benevolence, CO = conformity, TR = tradition, SE = security, AC = achievement, PO = power, HE = hedonism, ST = stimulation,
SD = self-direction. Documentation on the question wording and items is available here: [Link]
a
Three native Dutch speaking value experts translated the items for the present research, discrepancies in translation were discussed.
b
Responsibilities can be part of a position or social role that creates a relationship between two strangers and conformity values would be applicable
here in carrying these out. c Religious and Spirituality items are a separate dimension [23,54].

[Link]

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 6 / 20

Measures
In the LISS version of the Rokeach Value Survey, participants are asked to rate each of the values as guiding principles
in their lives on a scale from 1 “Very unimportant” to 7 “Very important”. Each value was presented as a single word; see
Table 2 for the list of items.
The Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ-21) is a 21-item measure of human values [31] deployed in the European
Social Survey. The PVQ-21 consists of short verbal portraits of different people. For each item, respondents indicate how
similar the person described is to themselves on a 6-point scale ranging from “very much like me” to “not like me at all”. An
example of an item is: “It is important to him to be rich. He wants to have a lot of money and expensive things”. A shorter
version, the PVQ-11, used in the WVS, is identical except that it includes only one item per value type and two items for
the universalism value.
Data from the RVS, PVQ-11 and PVQ-21 were ipsatized, that is, the mean rating of all items was subtracted from each
item, as recommended by Schwartz [17]. Ipsatization adjusts scores for differences in scale use and more accurately
reflects the theoretical construct of values as guiding behavior through their relative importance within the value system of
an individual. There are strong theoretical and empirical reasons for using ipsatization [42–44].
The mean rating of the RVS items within respondents used for its assessment was computed using the formula (1) to
ensure that the mean rating was not biased by the greater number of items pertinent to some values, like universalism
and benevolence (4–5 items), relative to others, such as conservation and self-direction (2–3 items). We computed the
average of i to n items belonging to each of j to k values, then computed the average of the values. The mean rating was
computed for each respondent p in each year y of data collection.
∑j ∑i
n xi
k n
Mean ratingpy =
k

The LISS and ESS data also include education which was standardized to the Statistics Netherlands categories of primary
school, lower secondary (VMBO), higher secondary (HAVO/VWO), college (HBO) and university (WO, reference cate-
gory). The gender variable was coded as 0 for women and 1 for men.

Data Analysis
The data analysis was conducted in three phases. First, we selected suitable items in the RVS given their theoretical
(face-value) fit and empirical location on MDS projections. Second, we confirmed the assigned value-types of the selected
items using MDS. Third, we compared the rating and relationship with other variables of values indexes in the LISS in
comparison to the ESS and WVS data.
Therefore, we first conducted a theory-based assessment, matching the value items to the descriptions of the value
types. After excluding unsuitable items, we assigned each RVS item to a provisional value type. Then we entered the
items into a weak confirmatory multidimensional scaling (MDS) analysis [45] to explore which items empirically fit to their
provisionally assigned value type.
Multidimensional scaling is a method for visualizing the similarity or dissimilarity of a set of objects in a low-dimensional
space. Exploratory forms of MDS often use random starting configurations. Weak confirmatory MDS imposes a starting
configuration on the variables. In both cases, the MDS finds the optimal configuration of points by minimizing a stress
function, which is an indicator of how well the data are represented in the resulting figure (a smaller stress indicator sug-
gests a better representation of the data in the figure). Using weak confirmatory MDS, researchers test the fit of a model
to the data, while allowing some flexibility to adjust to the observed similarities.
In our case, we used the ordering of value types in the theoretical representation of the value circle [23] to assign
each item coordinates on the unit circle. Additionally, to obtain robust results, we split our data into ten sub-samples

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 7 / 20

using non-replacement random sampling of the LISS wave 2008. An item was accepted as representing a value type if it
appears in the majority of MDS plots in the area of its assigned position and did not induce high stress. The stress-I statis-
tic is a measure of model fit, calculated by the difference in the distance between positions between pairs of items in the
low-dimensional space and their estimated similarities (correlations).
All MDS analyses were conducted in R4.3.2 using the Smacof 2.1–5 package [46,47] with a maximum iteration of
1x1040 and a convergence criterion of 1x10-40. Following Schwartz et al. [17]we used pairwise observations to estimate
correlations as measures of similarity and transformed these to dissimilarities by subtracting them from one. The MDS
analyses were ordinal, meaning a non-metric function was used to compute disparities, which preserve the rank order
between objects.
After the final item selection, we calculated the scales using the LISS 2013 wave. We conducted four analyses to con-
firm the similarity of these indexes. First, we conducted a weak confirmatory MDS to examine whether the quasi-
circumplex structure of values emerges. Second, we computed the rank of values by using the sample means of the
ipsatized ratings. We assessed the ranking of values using items from the RVS by comparing them the PVQ-11 (WVS)
and PVQ-21 (ESS). Third, we assessed the coordinates of a weak confirmatory MDS of the RVS to those of the PVQ-21,
using Procrustes analysis. Fourth, to assess the similarity between instruments by using demographic variables to predict
value indexes from the RVS, PVQ-11 and PVQ-21, showing all indexes have similar relationships
We used circular MDS on the final selection of RVS items in the 2013 LISS wave, as well as those in the PVQ-11 (WVS)
and the PVQ-21 (ESS). This algorithm forces items towards positions on the unit circle depending on the penalty parame-
ter, which we set to 100 to ensure items would fall on the unit circle but also induces stress, lowering model fit. In all figures
in text and the supplementary materials we show the stress-I statistics of the weak confirmatory and the circular MDS.
To compare the MDS solutions across samples we used Procrustes analysis. Procrustes analysis works by rotating,
scaling, and translating one configuration to match another, while minimizing the sum of squared differences between the
corresponding points. Tucker’s congruence coefficient quantifies their similarity [45], where coefficients higher than 0.95
indicate equal configurations [48].
To assess the similarity of our instruments we compared the relationships of the values with several socio-demographic
predictors. We chose socio-demographics, as societal structures and distinct life experiences can contribute to varying
value preferences [49–51]. We compared the value indexes by estimating standardized regression coefficients using the
RVS, PVQ-11 and PVQ-21 indexes as a dependent variable and estimating the effects of age (continuous), gender and
education level (nominal). Additionally we examine the value’s relationship with Left-Right political orientation, and two
personality traits, extraversion and intellect for which sufficient evidence exists of their relationship [42] or specifically in
the Dutch population [52], as the correlation between values and attitudes is contingent on both dispositional and situa-
tional factors [53].

Results
Choosing suitable items from the RVS
We first examined all items for theoretical (face) validity. Three native Dutch speaking value experts translated the items
for the present research, discrepancies in translation were discussed. Each item was assigned to a value using definitions
found in Table 1 and information in Schwartz et al. [23]. The theoretical allocations of RVS items to the values are pre-
sented in Table 2, column 4. A few items were unsuitable for measuring basic human values. These items were either too
ambiguous in Dutch, or they did not fit the definition or contents of values put forward by Schwartz [23]. We excluded the
following items: love and sexuality, family, salvation, happy, happiness and self-respect. Justifications for their exclusion
can be found in Table 2, column 4.
Table 2 also includes a note on whether a similar item occurs in other value instruments in the third column. Many
RVS items were integrated into the SVS or portrait descriptions of the PVQ-21. Other RVS items were excluded in the

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 8 / 20

construction of the SVS [23] due to their unstable location in the MDS projections. If an item was excluded in Schwartz
[23], this is also noted in the fourth column of Table 2, and the locations of these items in the MDS conducted by Schwartz
are listed.

Assessing empirical location of face-valid items in the RVS

Fig 2 shows the coordinates of the weak confirmatory MDS using the first subsample of the LISS 2008 wave. The Pro-
crustes rotation with the other subsamples showed that the congruence coefficients were 0.96 or above, indicating the
solutions were very similar. In Table 3, we list all items plotted with the number of times they appear in each region of
the MDS space. We noted any patterns in their location and recurrent stress contributions. A recurring pattern of a high
proportion of stress contributed which indicates its location does not fit with the theoretical structure imposed by the weak
confirmatory MDS. All the MDS figures using ipsatized scores (Figures 1–10 in S1 Figs), the total stress per item (Table
1 in S2 Tables) and heat maps of the stress per item (Figures 11–20 in S1 Figs) are in the supplementary materials. The
same MDS analyses using the ratings of values can be found in the supplementary material (Figures 21–30 in S1 Figs).
Overall, Fig 2 shows clear and distinct clusters of self-direction, benevolence, and universalism and conformity items
while items on achievement, stimulation and hedonism were mixed. As a result, the following items were excluded due
to their incongruent positions, high contributions to stress and/or ambiguous interpretations: hard working, courageous,

Fig 2. Coordinate plot of selected ipsatized Rokeach Value Survey items in the LISS in sub-sample 1 using assignments listed in Table 2.

[Link]

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 9 / 20

Table 3. Number of times an item is observed in expected location (in brackets) in weak
confirmatory MDS in ten subsamples of the LISS 2008 wave and notes on inconsistencies.
Label Value location
Honest Benevolence (10)
Responsible Benevolence (10)
Hard working Conformity (10)
Forgiving Benevolence (10)
Open Universalism (1)/ Benevolence (9)
Courageous Achievement (1)/Self-direction (1)/ Stimulation (1)/ Conformity (8)
Helpful Benevolence (9)/ Conformity (1)
Loving Benevolence (9)/ Universalism (1)
Competent Achievement (2)/ Conformity (3)/ Unclear (5)
Proper Tradition (0)/ Conformity (10)
Disciplined Self-direction (0) or conformity (10)
Independent Self-direction (2)/Achievement (2)/ Unclear (6)
Polite Conformity (10)
Intellectual Achievement (10)
Obedient Conformity (10)
Logical Conformity (0)/ Self-direction (0)/ Achievement(5)/ unclear (5)
Creative self-direction (3)/ Stimulation (4)/ Achievement (3)
World peace Universalism (9)/ Benevolence(1)
Freedom Self-direction (0)/ Universalism (10)
Equality Universalism (10)
Wisdom Universalism (0)/ Self-direction (10)
National security Security (0)/ Universalism (4)/ Unclear (6)
True friendship Benevolence (0)/ Universalism (10)
Achievement Achievement (10)
Inner harmony Universalism (8)/ Stimulation(2)
A comfortable life Hedonism (5)/ Universalism, or Stimulation (5)
Beauty Stimulation (10)
Pleasure Unclear (10)
Recognition, status Power (0)/ Achievement (10)
An exciting life Stimulation or Hedonism (10)

Note. Higher numbers in parenthesis indicate a more stable item. Value locations in bold are unexpected.

[Link]

competent, independent and logical-consistent. Additionally, the following items were re-categorized due to their location
on the MDS plot: wisdom (self-direction), beauty (stimulation), true friendship (universalism) and freedom (universalism).
Lastly, considering the trade-off between completeness and model fit, there are some items that we kept despite a high
stress or appearance in unexpected quadrants: pleasure, national security, a comfortable life, and creative. We retained
these items as they have a clear theoretical location and maintain a good coverage of the value circle. Our observations
and considerations on these items are discussed below.

Considerations on self-direction item “creative”

The “creative” item was unstable in its MDS location across ten sub-samples and contributed a considerable amount of
stress to the model. However, we found the stress and likely the MDS location to be induced by a strong correlation with

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 10 / 20

an item that did not make the final selection, namely “logical and consistent” (labelled as logical in Fig 2). Therefore, the
stress induced by this item in the exploratory MDS is of less importance. The “creative” item is also well-established and
included in the SVS and PVQ-21 as a self-direction item. Therefore, we opted to include it in the final selection.
We note that the division between “wisdom” as a universalism item or a self-direction item is unclear from the MDS pro-
jections. We have opted to categorize it as a self-direction item due to its strong negative correlation with all the conformity
items. We believe it reflects autonomy of thought – which according to Schwartz [17] should be negatively correlated with
conformity items and close to universalism, as it is close to intellectual openness and considering other’s points of view.

Considerations on security item “national security”

National security is a salient item for respondents of many countries, but less so in the Netherlands. It is likely that this
item is interpreted in many fashions and may reflect a political inclination rather than a value. This item contributed by far
the most stress and had inconsistent locations across the MDS projections of the ten sub-samples. Nevertheless, it is an
item that is clearly pertinent to the security-societal value and maybe a useful item in certain research contexts. There-
fore, we include it for completeness, but caution against its use as a good indicator of the security value within the Dutch
population.

Considerations on stimulation and hedonism items “pleasure”, “comfortable life”, “exciting life” and “beauty”
As shown in Fig 2 and noted in Table 3, the items for hedonism and stimulation were difficult to interpret as they were
often found close together in the exploratory MDS. This pattern is not unusual, as the items of these values are often inter-
mixed in the SVS [23]. Based on the detailed definitions of these values in Schwartz et al. [17], we decided to categorize
the items “pleasure” and “comfortable life” as hedonism and the items “exciting life” and “beauty” as stimulation items.
Hedonism is described as the pursuit of sensuous gratification with low arousal, which comes with an avoidance of the
stress and competition associated with achievement and power values. The “comfortable life” fits this description and is
in an appropriate location for a hedonism item in Fig 2, in between the stimulation and achievement items. Stimulation is
described as an orientation towards arousal and interest, thus the item “exciting life” fits as a stimulation item. As expected
from the definition of stimulation and its location on the value circle, “exciting life” and “beauty” have positive correlations
with achievement items and negative correlations with benevolence items.
Additionally, the “pleasure” item has the expected negative correlations with conformity items given hedonisms position
on the opposite side of the value circle. However, the separation of the two hedonism items from stimulation content is
less clear. First, the “comfortable life” item is positively correlated with achievement and the “exciting life” item. Second,
the “pleasure” item is correlated with both the other hedonism item “comfortable life” and the stimulation item “excit-
ing life”. Moreover, the “pleasure” item is often found among the self-direction items in the MDS projections. Therefore,
although we choose to separate these items into stimulation and hedonism, an argument could be made to merge these
four items into a broader stimulation-hedonism measurement, or to use cross-loadings to capture both hedonism and
stimulation components.

Final assignment of value items to values

Table 4 shows the final item assignments based on the weak confirmatory MDS results with their variable number in the
LISS data. Fig 3 shows a weak-confirmatory circular MDS analysis using the ipsatized items in Table 4 using data from
LISS wave 2013. The expected quasi-circumplex structure of value types emerges clearly using the subset of items, the
Stress-I value of the circular solution, 0.23, is significantly lower (p < .001) than random permutations, confirming a good
fit. All value types are in the expected order around the circle. Only one item, “pleasure” (measuring the hedonism value)
is not located in its expected area, and is among self-direction items. Additionally, the security item “national security” is

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 11 / 20

Table 4. Recommended Items and Value Assignment.
Value Best fit Cronbach’s Possible Items (with lower reliability)
Alpha [CI 95%]
Universalism A world at peace (117), Equality (120), Freedom (119) 0.57 [0.56 - 0.59] Inner harmony (128), True friendship (126)
Benevolence Honest (99), Forgiving (102), Helpful (105), Loving (106), Open (103) 0.62 [0.61 - 0.64] Responsible (100)
Stimulation Beauty (131), An exciting life (134) 0.42 [0.39 - 0.45]
Self-direction Creative (116), Wisdom (123) 0.18 [0.15 - 0.22]
Hedonism A comfortable life (129) Pleasure (132)
Achievement Intellectual (113), Achievement (127), Social recognition (133), 0.48 [0.45 - 0.50]
Power None
Security National security (124)
Conformity Obedient (114), Polite (112), Proper (108) 0.46 [0.43 - 0.48] Disciplined (109)
Tradition None

Note. The number between parentheses indicates the item-number in the LISS archive. UN = universalism, BE = benevolence, CO = conformity, TR = tra-
dition, SE = security, AC = achievement, PO = power, HE = hedonism, ST = stimulation, SD = self-direction.

[Link]

found in the theoretically expected position between conformity and achievement items. However, the “national security”
item still contributes a disproportionate amount of stress (17% of the total), which reduces the model fit.
Based on the results shown in Fig 2 and Fig 3, we categorized items into two groups. The first group includes best
fitting items based on their stability in the MDS solutions, face-validity and positive contribution to Cronbach’s alpha. Using
the best fitting items, the Cronbach’s alpha of all indexes are moderate to low, comparable to those previously reported for
the SVS [Schwartz, 2005] and PVQ-21 [Schwartz, 2003]. However, the self-direction index has a poor Cronbach alpha,
likely because the items span two distinct facets (thought and behavior) [17], which may impact its correlation with other
variables of interest. The second group of items have high face validity but lack a stable MDS location (pleasure), induce
a high stress (national security), or have a negative impact on Cronbach’s alpha (responsible, disciplined, true friendship
and inner harmony). Lastly, we report the fit statistics of a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) in the online supplementary
material Table 20 of S2 Tables for all values with at least 3 items assigned as ‘best fitting’ and one CFA combining the
stimulation and hedonism items. Note that we did not find suitable items for power and tradition values (Fig 3).

Assessing relationships between RVS, PVQ-21, PVQ-11, attitudes and demographics

Procrustes rotation with the PVQ-21 and PVQ-11. The circular MDS solutions of indexes constructed using the RVS
items were compared with MDS solutions of the indexes of two original Schwartz value instruments using Procrustes
rotation. This procedure showed that configuration of the eight value types found in the RVS 2013 data were highly similar
to the configuration of the same values in the ESS 2012 wave measured by the PVQ-21. The congruence coefficient was
0.97 indicating that the two configurations are very similar (Fig 32 in S1 Figs).
Ranking of items using RVS, PVQ-21 and PVQ-11. The ranking of values is quite stable within populations
[Schwartz and Bardi, 2001]. If the three questionnaires measure comparable values, their ranking in the same population
should also be similar. As can be seen in Table 5, ranking of values in the RVS, PVQ-21 and PVQ-11 are similar. The
only large difference between the data sources is the position of the self-direction value, which is ranked higher in the
PVQ-21 than the PVQ-11 and RVS. We inspected each item to understand the differences in ranking. The high ranking of
self-direction in the PVQ-21 is due to the “ Important to make own decisions and be free” item which receives the highest
mean ipsatized score. The other self-direction item in the PVQ-21, “creative”, is ranked third similar to cross-national
findings [55]. The PVQ-11 and RVS, which both include the creative item, rank it in fifth place. Thus, when comparing the

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 12 / 20

Fig 3. Circular Weak Confirmatory MDS of the Selected RVS items. Note. Based on LISS wave 2013. Items are ipsatized by mean rating.

[Link]

Table 5. Rankings of Values in the Netherlands in Ipsatized indexes.

Value LISS 2013 RVS WVS 2012 PVQ-11 ESS 2012 PVQ-21
Benevolence 1 1 1
Self-direction 5 5 2
Universalism 2 2 3
Security 3 3 4
Hedonism 4 6 5
Conformity 6 4 6
Tradition NA 7 7
Achievement 7 8 8
Stimulation 8 9 9
Power NA 10 10

Note. LISS is the Longitudinal Internet Study for Social Sciences. WVS = World Value Survey, ESS = European Social Survey. RVS = Rokeach Value
survey. PVQ = Portrait Value Questionnaire.

[Link]

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 13 / 20

same items, the self-direction value is still higher ranked in the PVQ-21 than in the other two instruments. Corroborating
these findings we calculated the ranking of values in separate age groups which provided similar results (Table 3–10
in S2 Tables). Overall, the ranking of values using the RVS seems very similar to ranking of values computed by using
the PVQ-21 and PVQ-11 instruments, but it is important for future users to bear in mind that the aspects of freedom and
independence are absent from the self-direction index in the LISS.
Relationship of RVS values with attitudes and personality traits. In this section we test the utility of the RVS value
indexes by leveraging the circumplex structure of values to examine their relationship with left-right political orientation
and two personality traits, namely agreeableness and intellect. The strength of relationship between a value and another
variable should change with the positioning of the value on the circle due to the compatibilities and incompatibilities of
value’s goal content and motivation [23].
Van Herk et al. [52] found that politically left-leaning respondents tend to prioritize universalism, benevolence and
self-direction while right-leaning respondents prioritize security, conformity, and achievement. Using the RVS in the LISS
data, we find similar relationships where benevolence (r = − 0.14, p < .001), universalism (r = − 0.22, p < .001) and self-
direction (- 0.16, p < .001) are associated with left-wing responses while conformity (r = 0.17, p < .001) and achievement
(r = 0.06, p < .001) are associated with right-wing responses on the left-right orientation item. These correlations indicate
that the RVS indexes are associated with left-right political orientation as found in van Herk et al. [52] and follow the pat-
tern predicted by the theory of basic human values.
Parks-Leduc et al. [42] conducted a meta-analysis to examine relationships between values and personality
traits. They found the agreeableness trait is strongly positively related to universalism, benevolence, conformity and
tradition while intellect is associated with self-direction, stimulation and universalism values. The RVS indexes in
the LISS data show similar patterns of relationships. Agreeableness has a substantive correlation with universalism
(r = 0.22, p < .001), benevolence (r = 0.22, p < .001) but was unrelated to the conformity index (r = − 0.00, p = .96). As
expected, due to the circumplex structure of values, agreeableness was also negatively associated with stimulation
(r = − 0.13, p < .001) and achievement (r = − 0.20, p < .001). Intellect is associated with self-direction (r = 0.26, p < .001)
weakly correlated with universalism (r = 0.04, p < .001) and unrelated to stimulation (r = − 0.02, p = .113). As expected
from the circumplex structure, intellect is also related to benevolence (r = 0.08, p < .001) and tradition (r = − 0.14,
p < .001). Associations between personality traits and values were not all replicated; however, the theoretically most
similar values did have a correlation while the theoretically opposing values were also negatively related. Thus, pro-
viding evidence that the value measures show expected relationship with similar constructs and their relationships
follow theoretical structure of values. Table 19 in S2 Tables shows a correlation matrix of the RVS value indexes with
all big-five personality traits, the left-right orientation, attitudes regarding marriage, divorce, immigration and multicul-
tural society.
Relationship with demographic variables. Demographic characteristics such as age, gender and socio-economic
status can reliably predict the relative importance of values. To assess similarities between value indexes using RVS
items and the PVQ-21 and PVQ-11, we show the standardized regression coefficients of age, gender and education level
predicting each of the eight value types. Since all three instruments measure similar value constructs, we expect them to
exhibit similar relationships in their respective representative samples of the Dutch population.
Previous studies using cross-sectional samples have shown that the social focused values (benevolence, universalism,
conservation, tradition, security) are positively associated with age while person focused values (achievement, power,
self-direction and stimulation) are negatively associated with age [49,56–60]. Past research has also shown that gender
is associated with the importance of benevolence and achievement [51,61]. In general, women value benevolence more
than men, and achievement values less than men. Lastly, higher socio-economic position is associated with lower impor-
tance of conservation and security, and higher importance of stimulation and self-direction values [50,53,62–64]. In the
regressions we use education level as a proxy for socio-economic position.

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 14 / 20

 Reporting our results, we follow the theoretical structure of the Schwartz value circle, and report the results of 8 of the
10 values for which we had sufficiently fitting items in the RVS (i.e., excluding tradition and power). All reported coeffi-
cients are standardized and significant at the p < .01 level unless otherwise noted. All regression tables can be found in the
supplementary materials Tables 11–18 in S2 Tables.
When comparing our three measurement instruments, benevolence has similar relations to gender in all three data
sources as expected, although varying in strength using the RVS (β = − 0.25, S.E. = 0.03) and the PVQ-11 (β = − 0.50,
S.E. = 0.05). As expected from previous research, age is positively related to benevolence in the PVQ-11 (β = 0.17,
S.E. = 0.03), and RVS but not significantly related in the PVQ-21 (β = 0.05, S.E. = 0.03, p = .094).
As expected, the RVS conformity index was related to education level, with secondary educated respondents rating
conformity higher (β = 0.53, S.E. = 0.06) compared to the reference category of university educated respondents. These
relationships fit the findings of sociological research [64,65] which has extensively shown that higher educated individ-
uals and those with complex jobs value conformity less than the lower educated. However, the RVS index of conformity
did not have a statistically significant relationship to age (β = − 0.02, S.E. = 0.02, p = .22), which was unexpected given a
documented positive relationship in most other samples, including the PVQ-21 (β = 0.17, S.E. = 0.03). Closer inspection of
the RVS conformity items showed that the item “proper” had a correlation with age. This item also features in the PVQ-
21 index of conformity. Note that the PVQ-11 conformity index also had a non-significant coefficient with age (β = − 0.04,
S.E. = 0.03, p = .16) – despite also asking about proper behavior. Therefore, the relationships with demographic variables
of the conformity items seems to fit previous findings but indicate that the RVS items may capture different aspects of
conformity values.
The security value in the RVS is based on the “national security” item. It is associated with gender a similar manner
in the RVS (β = − 0.21, S.E. = 0.05), PVQ-11 (β = 0.11, S.E. = 0.06) and PVQ-21 (β = − 0.22, S.E. = 0.03, p = .04) and with
secondary educated compared to university educated respondents in the RVS (β = 0.30, S.E. = 0.08), PVQ-11 (β = 0.47,
S.E. = 0.12) and PVQ-21 (β = 0.44, S.E. = 0.12) as expected from literature cited previously. We found a positive rela-
tionship with age in the RVS (β = 0.12, S.E. = 0.02) and PVQ-21 (β = 0.11, S.E. = 0.03) but not in the PVQ-11 (β = 0.03,
S.E. = 0.03, p = .38).
The achievement value seems to have a similar relationship with demographics across the three instruments. It was
negatively related to age in the RVS (β = − 0.06, S.E. = 0.03), PVQ-21 (β = − 0.20, S.E. = 0.02) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.20,
S.E. = 0.03). However, the strength of the effect was much lower with the RVS index. All three indexes showed that men
prioritise achievement more than women do, as expected from previously cited literature in the RVS (β = 0.31, S.E. = 0.03),
PVQ-21 (β = 0.20, S.E. = 0.03) and PVQ-11 (β = 0.29, S.E. = 0.05).
The hedonism indexes were negatively associated with age in the RVS (β = − 0.25, S.E. = 0.02), PVQ-21 (β = − 0.21,
S.E. = 0.03) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.17, S.E. = 0.03), as expected. All three indexes showed a positive effect of secondary
compared to university education in the RVS (β = 0.16, S.E. = 0.08), PVQ-21 (β = 0.25, S.E. = 0.12) and PVQ-11 (β = 0.35,
S.E. = 0.13).
The stimulation (ST) indexes had a similar and expected relationship with age in the RVS (β = − 0.15, S.E. = 0.02), PVQ-
21 (β = − 0.11, S.E. = 0.03) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.11 S.E. = 0.03), and with gender in the RVS (β = 0.36, S.E. = 0.03), PVQ-21
(β = 0.17, S.E. = 0.05) and PVQ-11 (β = 0.41, S.E. = 0.06) and secondary education compared to university education in the
RVS (β = − 0.15, S.E. = 0.08, p = .05), PVQ-21 (β = − 0.37, S.E. = 0.03) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.16, S.E. = 0.12, p = .19) although
this effect was not significant in the PVQ-11.
The self-direction indexes had different associations with age and gender between samples but were similarly related
to education, as expected, in all three samples. The PVQ-21 index had no significant relationship with age (β = 0.03,
S.E. = 0.03, p = .32) or gender (β = 0.07, S.E. = 0.05, p = .22), while RVS index was significantly predicted by age (β = 0.09,
S.E. = 0.02) and gender (β = 0.10, S.E. = 0.03). Lastly, the PVQ-11 index was predicted by gender (β = 0.22, S.E. = 0.03)
but not by age (β = − 0.01, S.E. = 0.03, p = .79). As expected, the secondary educated respondents prioritize self-direction

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 15 / 20

less than university educated in the RVS (β = − 0.27, S.E. = 0.08), PVQ-21 (β = − 0.30, S.E. = 0.12) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.28,
S.E. = 0.13).
The universalism (UN) index in the RVS had similar relationships with socio-demographics as the PVQ-21 and PVQ-11
indexes in the theoretically expected direction. In all three datasets, universalism had a positive relation with age in the
RVS (β = 0.21, S.E. = 0.02), PVQ-21 (β = 0.19, S.E. = 0.03) and PVQ-11 (β = 0.32, S.E. = 0.03) and a negative relation with
the male gender in the RVS (β = − 0.39, S.E. = 0.03), PVQ-21 (β = − 0.30, S.E. = 0.05) and PVQ-11 (β = − 0.28, S.E. = 0.05).
Overall, the expected relationship with age and gender indicate the universalism index in the RVS is consistent with other
measurement instruments.

Discussion
This paper established indexes based on items from the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) to measure values from the
Schwartz’s [23] theory of basic human values using the publicly available LISS panel data, thereby opening a new avenue
for researchers to examine the relationship between human values and a broad range of attitudes, traits, and behaviors.
We show that the RVS items in the LISS can be meaningfully interpreted following the theory of basic human values as
conceived by Schwartz [23]. We show a theoretically informed selection of RVS items form the value circle in a circular
MDS, indicating the correlation structure between items follows the theorized structure between values. The ranking of the
indexes in the respondents aged 25−65 is almost identical in the PVQ-21, PVQ-11 and RVS, except for the self-direction
value, which is unusually highly ranked in the ESS PVQ-21. Finally, the relations with demographics of the value indexes
in the RVS of the LISS data are very similar to the established PVQ-21 in the ESS data, and the relationships to the most
value-laden personality traits and to political orientation as found in previous research.
There are some limitations of the RVS indexes in the LISS data: while some values are well represented and have at
least three items available with a clear theoretical value type, a stable MDS location and similar relationships with other
variables (universalism, achievement, benevolence, conformity), other values are less well represented with only one or
two items (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism). Nevertheless, these value indexes have clear theoretical value types and
showed similar relationships with demographics, personality traits, and political orientation as other measurements. The
only exception is the security measure which has one item (national security) with an inconsistent location on the explor-
atory MDS plots of all 32 RVS items. However, this item did present itself in the expected location in the confirmatory MDS
with the subset of RVS items and showed similar relationship with demographic variables. Unfortunately, a limitation of the
RVS is that it lacks suitable items to measure power and traditional values. Additionally, the rating scale used in the LISS
makes it incomparable to ranking versions of the RVS. Thus, the indexes developed here should only be used for RVS
versions that use a comparable rating scale like the LISS.
The present findings suggest that measurements of values based on the theory of basic human values can be pro-
duced using instruments derived from different theories. To quantify to what extent the two instruments probe one com-
mon mental representation of a psychological concept, we suggest future research uses data containing information from
the same participants recorded in the target instruments to establish scalar equivalence between the RVS and a reliable
Schwartz measurement instrument.
This paper re-interprets secondary data in view of theoretical advances. This approach is not unique in the literature
regarding efforts to link outdated instruments from secondary data with the modern Schwartz values framework. Smallen-
broek et al. [39], for example, found that the value instrument from the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) from
Kluckhohn values theory could be used to reproduce the Schwartz value circle adequately for a longitudinal investigation
into the lifespan development of human values. Borg et al. [66] showed that the instrument developed in the values theory
of Helmut Klages, could be used to reproduce the Schwartz values framework. Efforts linking past and present research
methodologies allow reinterpretation of secondary data and can greatly enhance our understanding of human values by
facilitating comparisons between studies thereby facilitating knowledge accumulation.

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 16 / 20

 We derive general recommendations for future research using the LISS data. Researchers interested in testing hypoth-
eses on specific human values may use the LISS data to reproduce universalism, achievement, benevolence and confor-
mity. Self-direction, stimulation and hedonism may likewise be reproduced, but with the limitation that these are captured
with one or two-items only. Furthermore, researchers interested in testing hypotheses about higher-order human values
should note that in some cases, for example, self-enhancement, the value’s motivational goals are only partially covered.
We hope this paper will facilitate more longitudinal research on personal values and their relationships to the many
other traits, attitudes and behaviors measured in the LISS data. To help other researchers implement the indexes pre-
sented we have provided SPSS, R and Stata syntax in the “S3 Code” supplemntary materials file. We hope that these will
maximize cumulative knowledge by creating a standardized measurement of values in the LISS data for future studies,
aligning it with the measurement instruments of the theory of basic human values.

Supporting information
S1 Fig. MDS Projections, Heatmaps, and Procrustes Rotation Figures.
(ZIP)

S2 Tables. Stress Per Item, Procrustes Rotation Congruence Coefficient, Value Rankings, Regression Tables,
Correlation Matrix with Attitudinal Questions, Model Fit Table of the Confirmatory Factor Analysis.
(DOCX)

S3 Code. SPSS, R and Stata Syntax for Computing Value Scales.

(DOCX)

Author contributions
Conceptualization: Oscar SMALLENBROEK, I. Leijen, A. Stanciu, H. van Herk, A. Bardi.
Data curation: Oscar SMALLENBROEK.
Formal analysis: Oscar SMALLENBROEK.
Investigation: Oscar SMALLENBROEK.
Methodology: Oscar SMALLENBROEK, I. Leijen, A. Stanciu, H. van Herk, A. Bardi.
Project administration: Oscar SMALLENBROEK.
Visualization: Oscar SMALLENBROEK.
Writing – original draft: Oscar SMALLENBROEK, I. Leijen, A. Stanciu, H. van Herk, A. Bardi.
Writing – review & editing: Oscar SMALLENBROEK, I. Leijen, A. Stanciu, H. van Herk, A. Bardi.

References
1. Schwartz SH. Universals in the Content and Structure of Values: Theoretical Advances and Empirical Tests in 20 Countries. Advances in Experimen-
tal Social Psychology. Elsevier. 1992. 1–65. [Link]
2. Sagiv L, Roccas S, Cieciuch J, Schwartz SH. Personal values in human life. Nat Hum Behav. 2017;1(9):630–9. [Link]
0185-3 PMID: 31024134
3. Rokeach M. The nature of human values. The Free Press. 1973.
4. Scherpenzeel AC. “True” longitudinal and probability-based Internet panels: evidence from the Netherlands. Social and behavioral research and the
Internet. Routledge. 2018;77–104.
5. Leijen I, van Herk H, Bardi A. Individual and generational value change in an adult population, a 12-year longitudinal panel study. Scientific Reports.
2022;12(1):17844. [Link] PMID: 36284136

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 17 / 20

 6. Joshanloo M. There is no temporal relationship between hedonic values and life satisfaction: A longitudinal study spanning 13 years. Journal of
Research in Personality. 2021;93:104125. [Link]
7. Fetvadjiev VH, He J. The longitudinal links of personality traits, values, and well-being and self-esteem: A five-wave study of a nationally represen-
tative sample. J Personal Soc Psychol. 2019;117(2):448. [Link] PMID: 30394770
8. He J, van de Vijver FJR. Self-presentation styles in self-reports: Linking the general factors of response styles, personality traits, and values in a
longitudinal study. Personality and Individual Differences. 2015;81:129–34. [Link]
9. Leduc G, Billaudet L, Engström E, Hansson H, Ryan M. Farmers’ perceived values in conventional and organic farming: A comparison between
French, Irish and Swedish farmers using the Means-end chain approach. Ecological Economics. 2023;207:107767. [Link]
ecolecon.2023.107767
10. Tuulik K, Õunapuu T, Kuimet K, Titov E. Rokeach’s instrumental and terminal values as descriptors of modern organisation values. IJOL.
2016;5(2):151–61. [Link]
11. Kautish P, Khare A, Sharma R. Influence of values, brand consciousness and behavioral intentions in predicting luxury fashion consumption.
JPBM. 2020;30(4):513–31. [Link]
12. Sagiv L, Roccas S. How do values affect behavior? Let me count the ways. Personality and Social Psychology Review. 2021;25(4):295–316
[Link] PMID: 34047241
13. Okazaki S, Mueller B. Cross‐cultural advertising research: where we have been and where we need to go. International Marketing Review.
2007;24(5):499–518. [Link]
14. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1990;58(5):878–91. [Link]
15. Schwartz SH, Bilsky W. Toward a theory of the universal content and structure of values: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology. 1990;58(5):878–91. [Link]
16. Sagiv L, Schwartz SH. Personal values across cultures. Annual review of psychology. 2022;73(1):517–46. [Link]
psych-020821-125100 PMID: 34665670
17. Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J, Vecchione M, Davidov E, Fischer R, Beierlein C, et al. Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of personal-
ity and social psychology. 2012;103(4):663. [Link] PMID: 22823292
18. Schwartz SH. A Repository of Schwartz Value Scales with Instructions and an Introduction. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture. 2021;2(2).
[Link]
19. Lee JA, Sneddon JN, Daly TM, Schwartz SH, Soutar GN, Louviere JJ. Testing and extending Schwartz refined value theory using a best–worst
scaling approach. Assessment. 2019;26(2):166–80. [Link] PMID: 30740999
20. Cieciuch J, Schwartz SH. The Number of Distinct Basic Values and Their Structure Assessed by PVQ-40. J Pers Assess. 2012;94(3):321–8.
[Link] PMID: 22329443
21. Döring AK. Assessing Children’s Values: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 2010;28(6):564–77. [Link]
org/10.1177/0734282909357151
22. Lindeman M, Verkasalo M. Measuring values with the Short Schwartz’s Value Survey. J Pers Assess. 2005;85(2):170–8. [Link]
s15327752jpa8502_09 PMID: 16171417
23. Schwartz SH. Universals in the content and structure of values: theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology. 1992;25:1–65.
24. Allport GW, Odbert HS. Trait-names: A psycho-lexical study. Psychological Monographs. 1936;47(1):i–171. [Link]
25. Anderson NH. Likableness ratings of 555 personality-trait words. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1968;9(3):272–9. [Link] PMID:
5666976
26. Leijen I, van Herk H. Health and Culture: The Association between Healthcare Preferences for Non-Acute Conditions, Human Values and Social
Norms. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2021;18(23):12808. [Link] PMID:
34886534
27. Schwartz SH. Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons
from the European Social Survey. 2007;169:169–203.
28. Schwartz SH, Cieciuch J. Measuring the Refined Theory of Individual Values in 49 Cultural Groups: Psychometrics of the Revised Portrait Value
Questionnaire. Assessment. 2022;29(5):1005–19. [Link] PMID: 33682477
29. Döring AK, Blauensteiner A, Aryus K, Drögekamp L, Bilsky W. Assessing values at an early age: the Picture-Based Value Survey for Children
(PBVS-C). J Pers Assess. 2010;92(5):439–48. [Link] PMID: 20706930
30. Collins PR, Lee JA, Sneddon JN, Döring AK. Examining the consistency and coherence of values in young children using a new Animated Values
Instrument. Personality and Individual Differences. 2017;104:279–85. [Link]
31. Schwartz SH. Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. Measuring attitudes cross-nationally: Lessons
from the European Social Survey. 2007:161–93. [Link]

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 18 / 20

32. Schwartz SH. A Proposal for Measuring Value Orientations across Nations. Questionnaire Development Package of the European Social Survey.
2003;259–90. [Link]
33. Haerpfer C, Inglehart R, Moreno A, Welzel C, Kizilova K, Diez-Medrano J, et al. World values survey wave 7 (2017-2020) cross-national data-set.
2020.
34. Marchand M. Longitudinal Internet Survey for Social Sciences Core Study: Personality Wave 1. In: Centerdata MPa. Tilburg. 2009.
35. Elshout S. World Values Survey. In: Humanities DDSSSa. 2013.
36. ESS European Social Survey. [Link] 2024 February 28.
37. Schwartz SH. A proposal for measuring value orientations across nations. Questionnaire package of the European Social Survey.
2003;259(290):261.
38. Datler G, Jagodzinski W, Schmidt P. Two theories on the test bench: Internal and external validity of the theories of Ronald Inglehart and Shalom
Schwartz. Soc Sci Res. 2013;42(3):906–25. [Link] PMID: 23522003
39. Smallenbroek O, Stanciu A, Arant R, Boehnke K. Are values stable throughout adulthood? Evidence from two German long-term panel studies.
PLoS One. 2023;18(11):e0289487. [Link] PMID: 38032996
40. Vecchione M, Schwartz SH, Davidov E, Cieciuch J, Alessandri G, Marsicano G. Stability and change of basic personal values in early adolescence:
A 2-year longitudinal study. J Pers. 2020;88(3):447–63. [Link] PMID: 31402448
41. Puranen [Link]. Dutch version of the World Values Survey, round 2011-2012. Tilburg: CentERdata. 2014.
42. Parks-Leduc L, Feldman G, Bardi A. Personality traits and personal values: a meta-analysis. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2015;19(1):3–29. [Link]
org/10.1177/1088868314538548 PMID: 24963077
43. Rudnev M. Caveats of non-ipsatization of basic values: A review of issues and a simulation study. Journal of Research in Personality.
2021;93:104118. [Link]
44. Borg I, Bardi A, Schwartz SH. Does the Value Circle Exist Within Persons or Only Across Persons?. J Pers. 2017;85(2):151–62. [Link]
org/10.1111/jopy.12228 PMID: 26358414
45. Borg I, Groenen PJ, Mair P. Applied multidimensional scaling and unfolding. Statistics: Springer. 2018.
46. Leeuw J de, Mair P. Multidimensional Scaling Using Majorization: SMACOF inR. J Stat Soft. 2009;31(3). [Link]
47. Mair P, Groenen PJF, de Leeuw J. More on Multidimensional Scaling and Unfolding in R: smacof Version 2. J Stat Soft. 2022;102(10). [Link]
org/10.18637/jss.v102.i10
48. Lorenzo-Seva U, ten Berge JMF. Tucker’s Congruence Coefficient as a Meaningful Index of Factor Similarity. Methodology. 2006;2(2):57–64.
[Link]
49. Fung HH, Ho YW, Zhang R, Zhang X, Noels KA, Tam K-P. Age differences in personal values: Universal or cultural specific?. Psychol Aging.
2016;31(3):274–86. [Link] PMID: 26950224
50. Almeida JF, Machado FL, Costa AF. Social classes and values in Europe. Portuguese Journal of Social Science. 2006;5(2):95–117. [Link]
org/10.1386/pjss.5.2.95/1
51. Beutel AM, Marini MM. Gender and Values. American Sociological Review. 1995;60(3):436. [Link]
52. van Herk H, Schoonees PC, Groenen PJF, van Rosmalen J. Competing for the same value segments? Insight into the volatile Dutch political land-
scape. PLoS One. 2018;13(1):e0190598. [Link] PMID: 29324764
53. Miles A. The (Re)genesis of Values. Am Sociol Rev. 2015;80(4):680–704. [Link]
54. Borg I, Hermann D, Bilsky W, Pöge A. Do the PVQ and the IRVS scales for personal values support Schwartz’s value circle model or Klages’ value
dimensions model?. Meas Instrum Soc Sci. 2019;1(1). [Link]
55. Schwartz SH, Bardi A. Value Hierarchies Across Cultures. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology. 2001;32(3):268–90. [Link]
org/10.1177/0022022101032003002
56. Vilar R, Liu JH-f, Gouveia VV. Age and gender differences in human values: A 20-nation study. Psychology and aging. 2020. 12(2):248–57. https://
[Link]/10.1177/1948550620901980
57. Dobewall H, Tormos R, Vauclair C-M. Normative Value Change Across the Human Life Cycle: Similarities and Differences Across Europe. J Adult
Dev. 2017;24(4):263–76. [Link]
58. Gouveia VV, Milfont TL, Guerra VM. The functional theory of human values: From intentional overlook to first acknowledgement—A reply to
Schwartz (2014). Personality and Individual Differences. 2014;68:250–3. [Link]
59. Schwartz SH. Basic individual values: Sources and consequences. Handbook of value: Perspectives from economics, neuroscience, philosophy,
psychology and sociology. 2016. 84.
60. Robinson OC. Values and adult age: findings from two cohorts of the European Social Survey. Eur J Ageing. 2012;10(1):11–23. [Link]
org/10.1007/s10433-012-0247-3 PMID: 28804279
61. Schwartz SH, Rubel T. Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of personality and social psychology.
2005;89(6):1010. [Link] PMID: 16393031

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 19 / 20

62. Davidov E, Meuleman B. Explaining Attitudes Towards Immigration Policies in European Countries: The Role of Human Values. Journal of Ethnic
and Migration Studies. 2012;38(5):757–75. [Link]
63. Knafo A, Sagiv L. Values and work environment: Mapping 32 occupations. Eur J Psychol Educ. 2004;19(3):255–73. [Link]
bf03173223
64. Kohn ML. Social Class and Parental Values. American Journal of Sociology. 1959;64(4):337–51. [Link]
65. Kohn ML, Slomczynski KM. Social structure and self-direction: A comparative analysis of the United States and Poland. Basil Blackwell. 1990.
66. Borg I. Age- and gender-related differences in the structure and the meaning of personal values. Personality and Individual Differences.
2019;138:336–43. [Link]

PLOS One | [Link] August 12, 2025 20 / 20