Goal and Social Valued Inventories

Abstract

The Goal and Social Valued Inventories (GSVI), developed by psychometricians Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law in 1985, represents a foundational advancement in the empirical measurement of human value systems. Constructed primarily to overcome the structural, statistical, and conceptual limitations inherent in Milton Rokeach’s ipsative ranking methodology—the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)—the GSVI provides a normative, interval-level assessment of both terminal personal goals and societal guiding principles. The inventory comprises 43 items systematically classified across nine distinct value orientations: International Harmony and Equality, National Strength and Order, Traditional Religiosity, Personal Growth and Inner Harmony, Physical Well-being, Social Standing, Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships, Social Stimulation, and Individual Rights. Respondents evaluate each value using an asymmetric 7-point response scale ranging from 1 (“I reject this”) to 7 (“I accept this as of the greatest importance”), designed specifically to capture the natural skewness of human values while preserving discrimination among widely endorsed social ideals. Psychometric investigations demonstrate robust internal consistency across primary dimensions, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reaching up to 0.83 for International Harmony and Equality and 0.81 for National Strength and Order. Factor analyses confirmed distinct multidimensional constructs that align with fundamental human strivings, political attitudes, and social behaviors. This comprehensive assessment tool continues to serve as an essential instrument in social psychology, political science, organizational behavior, and cross-cultural values research.

Keywords

Goal and Social Valued Inventories, GSVI, human values, Rokeach Value Survey, terminal values, social values, normative rating scales, psychometrics, Valerie Braithwaite, political ideology, value structures

Authors

The Goal and Social Valued Inventories was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law. At the time of the instrument’s initial development and formal publication in 1985:

• Valerie A. Braithwaite, Ph.D.: Affiliated with the Australian National University (Canberra, Australia), where she later served as an emeritus professor in the Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet) and the Centre for Tax System Integrity. Her scholarship extensively covers value structures, social justice, regulatory compliance, democratic governance, and institutional trust.
• H. G. Law, Ph.D.: Affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Queensland (St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia). His research emphasized quantitative psychometrics, multidimensional scaling, factor analytic design, and multivariate behavioral analysis.

Purpose

The foundational purpose of the Goal and Social Valued Inventories is to provide a psychometrically sound, normatively scored instrument capable of measuring the broad spectrum of human guiding principles, end-state goals, and social values without the mathematical and statistical distortions imposed by forced-choice ranking methods. Throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, empirical research into value systems was dominated by the Rokeach Value Survey (Rokeach, 1973). While the RVS provided ground-breaking conceptual insights, its methodological reliance on rank-ordering 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values created ipsative data. In ipsative measurement, an individual’s score on one item is intrinsically dependent upon their scores on all remaining items, resulting in a constant sum constraint.

Braithwaite and Law recognized that ipsative ranking produces critical statistical dilemmas:

• It violates the assumption of independence necessary for standard parametric statistics, such as Pearson product-moment correlations, exploratory factor analysis, and analysis of variance.
• It introduces artificial negative correlations between items, distorting underlying factor structures and obscuring genuine positive associations among broad value domains.
• It measures intra-individual relative priorities rather than absolute value intensity, making it impossible to determine whether an individual who ranks a value tenth rejects it or merely endorses it slightly less than nine other cherished principles.

The GSVI was deliberately engineered to resolve these issues by shifting to an absolute, multi-point rating system. Furthermore, the instrument expanded upon Rokeach’s lexicon by incorporating broader societal, ecological, physical, and developmental dimensions that had been omitted from earlier inventories. The resulting tool serves diverse clinical, political, organizational, and research objectives:

• Political Psychology and Ideology: Assessing the value underpinnings of voting behavior, partisan alignments, civic participation, and social movements. Subscales such as “International Harmony and Equality” versus “National Strength and Order” differentiate between progressive and conservative orientations.
• Sociological and Cross-Cultural Research: Evaluating shifting cultural priorities across generations, tracking modernization processes, and assessing societal cohesion in multicultural settings.
• Organizational and Occupational Psychology: Measuring person-organization value congruence, ethical decision-making climates, leadership philosophies, and corporate social responsibility orientations.
• Counseling and Clinical Practice: Facilitating values clarification in existential therapy, acceptance and commitment frameworks, and vocational rehabilitation, allowing clients to articulate life goals across personal, social, and physical domains.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the GSVI is the multidimensional taxonomy of human values, defined as enduring, emotionally charged beliefs that transcend specific situations, guide the selection or evaluation of behavior and events, and are ordered by relative importance. Braithwaite and Law organized values into two conceptual domains: Societal Values (principles governing collective human coexistence and governance) and Individual/Personal Goals (ultimate end-states of personal functioning and private well-being). Within these domains, the 43 items operationalize nine distinct subscales:

1. International Harmony and Equality

This subscale comprises 10 items assessing an individual’s commitment to broad humanitarian principles, egalitarianism, democratic governance, and global peace. It reflects a universalistic moral posture emphasizing collective human welfare, ecological conservation, reduction of economic disparity, and fundamental human dignity. Items include A good life for others, Rule by the people, International cooperation, Social progress and social reform, A world at peace, A world of beauty, Human dignity, Equal opportunity for all, Greater economic equality, and Preserving the natural environment.

2. National Strength and Order

Consisting of 4 items, this construct reflects societal values centered on state power, lawfulness, institutional authority, and collective security. It taps into systemic stability, law enforcement, and national economic progress. Items include National greatness, National economic development, The rule of law, and National security.

3. Traditional Religiosity

This 4-item subscale captures adherence to conventional spiritual, transcendent, and conservative moral standards. It measures devotion to divine communion, traditional behavioral prohibitions, and transcendent salvation, counterbalanced by intimate relational principles. Items include Salvation, Religious or mystical experience, Upholding traditional sexual moral standards, and Sexual intimacy.

4. Personal Growth and Inner Harmony

Comprising 6 items, this dimension measures self-actualization, cognitive advancement, maturity, and internal equilibrium. It encapsulates humanistic strivings toward wisdom, self-awareness, and personal competence. Items include Self-knowledge or self-insight, The pursuit of knowledge, Inner harmony, Self-improvement, Wisdom, and Self-respect.

5. Physical Well-being

This 3-item subscale operationalizes somatic health, biological vitality, and active physical engagement as foundational life values. Items include Physical development, Good health, and Physical exercise.

6. Social Standing

Consisting of 3 items, this construct measures individual aspirations toward societal recognition, socioeconomic dominance, status, and authority. It reflects an externalized, prestige-driven orientation. Items include Recognition by the community, Economic prosperity, and Authority.

7. Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships

This 5-item subscale reflects the fundamental human need for belonging, interpersonal safety, emotional closeness, and mutual caretaking. Items include Mature love, True friendship, Personal support, Security for loved ones, and Acceptance by others.

8. Social Stimulation

Comprising 2 items, this subscale captures hedonic, experiential, and sensation-seeking orientations, highlighting an energetic social life and sensory/experiential novelty. Items include An active social life and An exciting life.

9. Individual Rights and Hedonic Autonomy

This 6-item grouping evaluates fundamental individual freedoms, psychological privacy, self-determination, personal property, stress-free leisure, and the baseline protection of human existence. Items include Privacy for yourself, A sense of ownership, A leisurely life, Carefree enjoyment, The protection of human life, and Comfort but not luxury.

Theoretical Framework

The theoretical architecture of the GSVI is directly rooted in the sociological and psychological paradigms formulated by Clyde Kluckhohn (1951), Milton Rokeach (1973), and Norman T. Feather (1975). Kluckhohn defined a value as “a conception, explicit or implicit, distinctive of an individual or characteristic of a group, of the desirable which influences the selection from available modes, means, and ends of action.” Rokeach operationalized this definition by distinguishing between two core classes of values:

• Terminal Values: Desirable end-states of existence (e.g., world peace, wisdom, salvation) that individuals strive to achieve throughout their lifetime.
• Instrumental Values: Desirable modes of conduct (e.g., honesty, ambition, obedience) that serve as behavioral vehicles to attain terminal goals.

Braithwaite and Law expanded upon Rokeach’s functionalist model by recognizing that Rokeach’s 18 terminal items conflated two fundamentally distinct levels of reality: individual-centered personal goals (such as inner harmony, mature love, and self-respect) and society-centered collective values (such as a world at peace, national security, and equality). Braithwaite argued that personal goals and societal goals serve different psychological functions. Societal values govern social contracts, societal institutions, and ideological allegiances, whereas personal values guide individual behavioral choices, self-esteem regulation, and lifestyle choices.

Furthermore, the GSVI anticipated the subsequent cross-cultural framework established by Shalom H. Schwartz (the Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values). The dimensions uncovered by Braithwaite and Law—specifically the tension between International Harmony/Equality and National Strength/Order—directly mirror the universal circumplex axes identified by Schwartz: Self-Transcendence versus Self-Enhancement and Openness to Change versus Conservation. By replacing ipsative ranking with independent normative ratings, Braithwaite and Law provided the psychometric methodology that facilitated subsequent structural models of human values across global populations.

Validity

The empirical validity of the GSVI has been established across multiple validation studies using diverse community, university, and political samples:

Construct and Structural Validity

Construct validity was demonstrated by Braithwaite and Law (1985) through rigorous factor analytic and multidimensional scaling procedures. When evaluated across independent samples of Australian citizens and university students, the 43 items consistently clustered into distinct societal and personal sub-dimensions. The empirical separation of societal values (e.g., International Harmony, National Strength) from interpersonal and personal values verified the authors’ theoretical assertion that individuals maintain distinct cognitive frameworks for collective governance versus private life pursuits.

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity was evaluated by correlating GSVI scale scores with external measures of political ideology, religious involvement, and self-reported behavioral commitments:

• International Harmony and Equality demonstrated significant positive correlations with support for nuclear disarmament, environmental conservation organizations, foreign aid programs, and progressive social legislation.
• National Strength and Order correlated strongly with support for increased defense spending, mandatory military service, punitive judicial policies, and strict law enforcement measures.
• Traditional Religiosity correlated strongly with frequency of church attendance (r > .60), private prayer, and negative attitudes toward abortion and pornography.
• Physical Well-being correlated positively with active participation in athletic sports, frequency of cardiovascular exercise, and objective health-monitoring behaviors.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

The GSVI exhibits strong discriminant validity across partisan political affiliations. In studies examining Australian voting behavior, individuals supporting left-of-center parties (e.g., Australian Labor Party, Australian Democrats) scored significantly higher on International Harmony and Equality and lower on National Strength and Order. Conversely, voters supporting conservative coalitions (Liberal-National parties) exhibited the opposite pattern, prioritizing National Strength, Order, and Economic Prosperity while de-emphasizing radical social reform and wealth redistribution.

Reliability

The reliability of the GSVI has been documented using internal consistency estimations (Cronbach’s alpha) and temporal stability assessments across diverse samples. In the original validation studies conducted by Braithwaite and Law (1985), the primary subscales demonstrated the following alpha coefficients:

• International Harmony and Equality: α = 0.83 (10 items)
• National Strength and Order: α = 0.81 (4 items)
• Physical Well-being: α = 0.74 (3 items)
• Personal Growth and Inner Harmony: α = 0.73 (6 items)
• Traditional Religiosity: α = 0.70 (4 items)
• Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships: α = 0.68 (5 items)
• Social Standing: α = 0.65 (3 items)
• Social Stimulation: α = 0.53 (2 items)

The relatively modest reliability coefficient observed for Social Stimulation (α = 0.53) is statistically attributable to the small number of indicators (2 items). When corrected using the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula, the underlying construct exhibits satisfactory reliability. Test-retest evaluations across 4-week to 12-week intervals yielded stability coefficients ranging from r = .68 to r = .82, indicating that the GSVI captures enduring value orientations rather than transient affective states.

Factor Analysis

Braithwaite and Law subjected the 43 items of the GSVI to extensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and multidimensional scaling (MDS) to confirm the latent structure of human values. In their foundational 1985 investigation, principal components analysis followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations yielded a clean, interpretable factor structure:

• Higher-Order Factor Structure: At the highest hierarchical level, human values bifurcate into two overarching domains: Societal/Systemic Values and Individual/Personal Goals. Societal values address how collective communities should be ordered, whereas individual goals delineate what constitutes a meaningful, flourishing personal life.
• Primary Factor Loadings: Within the Societal domain, items such as A world at peace (.72), Equal opportunity for all (.70), and Greater economic equality (.68) loaded heavily on the International Harmony and Equality factor, showing minimal cross-loadings on the National Strength factor. Conversely, National security (.79) and National greatness (.75) loaded cleanly on National Strength and Order.
• Personal Goals Structure: In the personal domain, Self-respect, Inner harmony, and Wisdom loaded distinctly onto Personal Growth, whereas Physical fitness, Good health, and Physical exercise loaded unequivocally onto Physical Well-being (loadings > .65).
• Model Fit: Subsequent confirmatory factor analytic (CFA) investigations replicating the GSVI in community and occupational samples have consistently supported the multi-factor model, exhibiting acceptable fit indices (Comparative Fit Index [CFI] > .90; Root Mean Square Error of Approximation [RMSEA] ≤ .06).

Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Construct Measured: Human terminal values, social principles, and personal life goals.
• Test Format: Self-report questionnaire consisting of brief value labels followed by explanatory definitions enclosed in parentheses.
• Number of Items: 43 items organized across 9 conceptual dimensions: International Harmony and Equality (10 items), National Strength and Order (4 items), Traditional Religiosity (4 items), Personal Growth and Inner Harmony (6 items), Physical Well-being (3 items), Social Standing (3 items), Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships (5 items), Social Stimulation (2 items), and Individual Rights (6 items).
• Response Scale: An asymmetric 7-point Likert-style acceptance/rejection rating scale:
• 1 = I reject this
• 2 = I am inclined to reject this
• 3 = I neither reject nor accept this
• 4 = I am inclined to accept this
• 5 = I accept this as important
• 6 = I accept this as very important
• 7 = I accept this as of the greatest importance
• Scoring Procedures: Subscale scores are calculated by computing the unweighted arithmetic mean of the items comprising each subscale. Higher mean scores indicate greater psychological endorsement and perceived priority of that specific value orientation. Total aggregate scores are generally not computed, as the instrument assesses multidimensional profiles rather than a single general factor.
• Administration Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes for self-administration.
• Target Populations: Adults, adolescents, university students, and specialized civic or organizational populations.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Goal and Social Valued Inventories was formally published in 1985 by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (published by the American Psychological Association). The inventory is in the public academic domain for non-commercial educational, scientific, and empirical research purposes. No licensing fees or royalty payments are required for researchers administering the scale in scholarly inquiries, provided that proper bibliographic attribution is accorded to Braithwaite and Law (1985). Commercial applications, automated platform integration, or corporate consulting uses may require permission from the copyright holder or authors.

References

• Braithwaite, V. A., & Law, H. G. (1985). Structure of human values: Testing the adequacy of the Rokeach Value Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49(1), 250–263. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.1.250
• Feather, N. T. (1975). The values in education and society. Free Press.
• Gore, T. J. (2014). Goal orientations and self-efficacy interactions on self-set goal level (Master’s thesis, Wright State University). CORE Scholar. https://corescholar.libraries.wright.edu/etd_all/1231/
• Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and value-orientations in the theory of action: An exploration in definition and classification. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a general theory of action (pp. 388–433). Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674863507.c8
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550–562. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550

Items of the Scale