Goal and Social Values Inventories

Abstract

The Goal and Social Values Inventories (GSVI), originally operationalized and psychometrically validated by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law in 1985, represents a seminal psychometric instrument designed to assess multidimensional human values, guiding life principles, and social-societal goals. Developed out of an empirical and structural critique of the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), the GSVI addresses critical psychometric limitations inherent in ipsative ranking methods by utilizing a 7-point asymmetric non-ipsative rating scale ranging from 1 (“I reject this”) to 7 (“I accept this as of the greatest importance”). Comprising 43 target items across distinct empirical dimensions, the inventory bifurcates broad human value systems into societal goals (social values) and personal goals (individual values). The identified dimensions include International Harmony and Equality (α = .83), National Strength and Order (α = .81), Traditional Religiosity (α = .70), Personal Growth and Inner Harmony (α = .73), Physical Well-Being (α = .74), Social Standing (α = .65), Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships (α = .68), Social Stimulation (α = .53), and an exploratory cluster capturing Individual Rights and self-determination. This comprehensive instrument demonstrates robust structural validity, high cross-sample replicability, and convergent validity with established personality, socio-political, and behavioral constructs. The GSVI continues to serve as an indispensable measurement paradigm across social psychology, political science, organizational behavior, and cross-cultural psychometrics, bridging the gap between micro-level personal aspirations and macro-level socio-political ideologies.

Keywords

Goal and Social Values Inventories, GSVI, Valerie Braithwaite, human values, Rokeach Value Survey, social values, personal goals, psychometrics, non-ipsative rating, structural equation modeling

Authors

The Goal and Social Values Inventories was conceptualized, developed, and validated by:

• Valerie A. Braithwaite, Ph.D. — Professor and Senior Fellow at the Regulatory Institutions Network (RegNet), College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University (ANU), Canberra, Australia. Renowned for her contributions to institutional trust, social values, regulatory compliance, and tax system morale.
• H. G. Law, Ph.D. — Quantitative psychologist and psychometrician formerly affiliated with the Department of Psychology, University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland, Australia. Renowned for advanced methodologies in multivariate analysis, factor analysis, and scale construction.

Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Goal and Social Values Inventories (GSVI) is to provide a comprehensive, structurally validated, and non-ipsative measurement framework for capturing the multidimensional spectrum of human values and motivational goals. Prior to the introduction of the GSVI, the dominant paradigm in empirical value research was Milton Rokeach’s Value Survey (RVS; Rokeach, 1973). Although foundational, the RVS required participants to rank order two separate sets of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values. This ranking methodology produced purely ipsative data, wherein the prioritization of one value mechanically forced the lower placement of another. Such forced-choice ranking produces structural dependencies, violates the basic assumptions of classic multivariate analysis (such as exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis), conceals the overall elevation or intensity of an individual’s value commitments, and artificially imposes trade-offs that individuals do not necessarily experience in real-world cognition.

Braithwaite and Law designed the GSVI to resolve these theoretical and methodological roadblocks. By expanding the item pool beyond the RVS to cover neglected social, political, ecological, and somatic domains, and by deploying an asymmetrical 7-point rating scale capable of capturing both active rejection and degrees of positive endorsement, the GSVI evaluates how people relate to principles that guide individual conduct and public governance. The instrument assesses how societal goals (such as international peace, environmental preservation, national security, and democratic governance) intersect with personal aspirations (such as self-insight, physical vitality, true friendship, and intellectual curiosity).

In applied research, the GSVI serves vital functions across diverse subfields:

• Political Psychology and Sociology: The GSVI systematically maps ideological divides, elucidating how citizens prioritize egalitarian principles versus institutional authority, national security, and economic growth. It enables political scientists to predict voting behaviors, public policy preferences, attitudes toward redistribution, and responses to global humanitarian crises.
• Organizational Behavior and Workplace Culture: Organizational psychologists employ the scale to assess value alignment (person-organization fit), ethical decision-making among managers, leadership styles, corporate social responsibility attitudes, and employee well-being.
• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: In therapeutic paradigms like Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), assessing personal values is crucial for clarifying meaning and setting authentic life goals. The GSVI provides clinicians with a standardized diagnostic profile of an individual’s core motivational orientations, internal value conflicts, or alienation from interpersonal connection.
• Cross-Cultural and Environmental Research: Because it separates collective societal goals from individualistic personal desires, the GSVI allows researchers to investigate cultural differences in collectivism, civic engagement, social justice mobilization, and ecological stewardship.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the GSVI is rooted in the structural definition of human values as enduring, trans-situational beliefs regarding desirable end-states or modes of conduct that guide the selection or evaluation of behavior, people, and events. Braithwaite and Law posited that human value systems are organized hierarchically and multidimensionally into two broad categories: Social Values (which concern collective organizational structures, societal functioning, and human relationships at large) and Personal Values (which concern individual goals, internal psychological states, and immediate personal well-being). The 43 items of the inventory map onto distinct, coherent psychological subscales:

1. International Harmony and Equality

This dimension encompasses an altruistic, universalist, and humanistic worldview. It addresses societal and planetary goals aimed at broad welfare, peace, democratic decision-making, and justice. Items in this subscale (e.g., “A good life for others”, “Rule by the people”, “International cooperation”, “Greater economic equality”, and “Preserving the natural environment”) reflect high moral inclusion, concern for the disadvantaged, ecological preservation, and opposition to structural inequality and warfare.

2. National Strength and Order

In sharp contrast to international egalitarianism, this subscale captures a traditional, state-centric, and security-oriented value system. It focuses on the preservation of social order, legal enforcement, defensive capability, and national prosperity. Items include “National greatness”, “National economic development”, “The rule of law”, and “National security”. Individuals scoring high on this dimension prioritize stability, law enforcement, state sovereignty, and collective economic strength.

3. Traditional Religiosity

This subscale assesses an individual’s adherence to metaphysical, divine, and historically conservative moral doctrines. Containing items such as “Salvation”, “Religious or mystical experience”, and “Upholding traditional sexual moral standards”, it measures religious devotion, the search for spiritual transcendence, and adherence to normative sexual ethics, juxtaposed against personal hedonism or moral relativism.

4. Personal Growth and Inner Harmony

Focusing on individual psychological flourishing, this dimension embodies self-actualization, intellectual curiosity, and psychological equilibrium. Represented by items such as “Self-knowledge or self-insight”, “The pursuit of knowledge”, “Inner harmony”, “Self-improvement”, “Wisdom”, and “Self-respect”, this construct reflects an individual’s commitment to cognitive expansion, self-examination, and inner tranquility.

5. Physical Well-Being

A domain noticeably absent from earlier inventories like the original RVS, this construct explicitly acknowledges the somatic foundation of human life. Comprising “Physical development”, “Good health”, and “Physical exercise”, it measures the priority an individual places on maintaining bodily vitality, health, and athletic discipline.

6. Social Standing

This dimension taps into extrinsic motivation, social dominance, and hierarchical ambition. Measured by “Recognition by the community”, “Economic prosperity”, and “Authority”, it reflects the desire for prestige, financial affluence, interpersonal influence, and overt societal status.

7. Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships

Focusing on micro-level social bonds, this construct emphasizes emotional intimacy, attachment security, and reciprocal affection. Items include “Mature love”, “True friendship”, “Personal support”, “Security for loved ones”, and “Acceptance by others”. It evaluates the fundamental human need for belonging, relational safety, and deep emotional connections.

8. Social Stimulation

A lower-order dimension capturing sensation-seeking and extraversion within interpersonal contexts. It includes “An active social life” and “An exciting life”, indexing the value an individual places on novelty, vibrant social contact, dynamism, and variety in day-to-day existence.

9. Individual Rights and Autonomy

This domain addresses civil liberties, negative freedom, privacy, and personal space. Items such as “Privacy for yourself”, “A sense of ownership”, “A leisurely life”, “Carefree enjoyment”, “The protection of human life”, and “Comfort but not luxury” evaluate the respondent’s desire for autonomy from external pressure, property rights, relaxation, and protection from intrusion.

Theoretical Framework

The Goal and Social Values Inventories operates at the intersection of several prominent theoretical paradigms in personality, social psychology, and political ideology. Its primary foundation is grounded in the cognitive-developmental value theories established by Milton Rokeach (1973), who defined values as core cognitive representations of institutional goals and personal needs that function as criteria for action, justification, ideology, and self-presentation.

However, Braithwaite and Law fundamentally extended Rokeachian theory by identifying and addressing two major theoretical oversights. First, Rokeach assumed that terminal values (preferred end-states of existence) and instrumental values (preferred modes of conduct) represented distinct phenomenological categories. Braithwaite and Law demonstrated that in natural human cognition, the boundary between an end-state and a mode of behavior is highly permeable; individuals view broad societal goals (e.g., social equality) simultaneously as processes and ideals. Second, Rokeach treated values as functioning in an inherently competitive hierarchy, justifying an ipsative ranking method. In contrast, Braithwaite and Law argued from psychological cognitive schema theory: human values operate as an interrelated system of interconnected schemas that can be co-activated, balanced, or pursued concurrently without mechanical trade-offs.

Furthermore, the GSVI anticipated and contributed directly to Shalom H. Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987; Schwartz, 1992). The dimensions discovered by Braithwaite and Law parallel Schwartz’s higher-order dimensions: International Harmony and Equality aligns directly with Schwartz’s “Universalism”; National Strength and Order and Traditional Religiosity correspond with “Conformity/Tradition” and “Security”; Social Standing reflects “Power” and “Achievement”; and Personal Growth and Inner Harmony mirrors “Self-Direction”. However, the GSVI maintains a distinct structural advantage by systematically segregating macro-societal goals (social values) from micro-personal goals (personal values), which allows researchers to investigate incongruence between how an individual wants society to be structured versus what they pursue in their personal life.

Additionally, the GSVI integrates sociopolitical theories of ideology, notably Bob Altemeyer’s Authoritarianism and Social Dominance Theory (Sidanius & Pratto, 1999). By measuring National Strength and Order and Rule of Law independently from International Harmony and Equality, the GSVI can measure dual-process motivational models of political attitudes, showing how distinct personal and social goal profiles lead to authoritarian versus egalitarian social orientations.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Goal and Social Values Inventories has been established through diverse empirical methodologies across multiple populations.

Construct and Factorial Validity

In their initial seminal validation study, Braithwaite and Law (1985) administered the inventory to representative community and undergraduate samples in Australia. Applying principal components analysis and confirmatory factor modeling, the authors demonstrated that the empirical structure cleanly separated into the hypothesized social and personal value domains. When evaluating item loadings, items consistently demonstrated high factor purity, with primary loadings typically exceeding .50 and cross-loadings remaining low. Confirmatory assessments supported the multi-dimensional structure over unidimensional or simple bi-polar conceptualizations, verifying that human values cannot be reduced to a single left-right or liberal-conservative axis.

Convergent Validity

The GSVI exhibits strong convergent validity when evaluated alongside established personality and attitude inventories:

• The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS): The subscales of the GSVI show strong correlations with corresponding items from the original RVS (e.g., GSVI International Harmony and Equality correlates strongly with RVS “A world at peace” and “Equality”, r > .65).
• Schwartz Value Survey (SVS): Studies comparing the GSVI against Schwartz’s value types have revealed high convergence between GSVI Social Standing and Schwartz’s Power dimension (r = .58), and between GSVI Personal Growth and Self-Direction (r = .62).
• Big Five Personality Traits: GSVI subscales demonstrate predictable patterns with the Five-Factor Model of personality. International Harmony and Equality correlates positively with Agreeableness and Openness to Experience (r = .38 to .46); Social Stimulation correlates robustly with Extraversion (r = .54); and Personal Growth correlates positively with Openness to Experience (r = .49).

Discriminant and Known-Groups Validity

Discriminant validity is supported by low to negligible inter-correlations between non-theoretically linked dimensions (e.g., Physical Well-Being correlates near zero with Traditional Religiosity, r = .06). Furthermore, known-groups validity has been repeatedly substantiated: political activists belonging to left-leaning environmental and peace organizations score significantly higher on International Harmony and Equality and Preserving the Natural Environment compared to mainstream populations, while members of conservative, law-and-order political parties score higher on National Strength and Order and Traditional Religiosity.

Predictive and Criterion Validity

The predictive power of the GSVI is demonstrated across numerous behavioral criteria. Braithwaite (1998) utilized the GSVI framework to predict citizen compliance and tax evasion behaviors, showing that individuals endorsing high collective social values demonstrated greater institutional trust and tax morale. In health psychology, the Physical Well-Being subscale significantly predicts active adherence to exercise regimens and preventative medical screenings, independent of general self-efficacy.

Reliability

The internal consistency and temporal stability of the Goal and Social Values Inventories have been thoroughly documented in empirical research. In the initial validation investigation by Braithwaite and Law (1985), internal consistency was calculated using Cronbach’s alpha across all identified subscales:

• International Harmony and Equality: α = .83 (10 items), demonstrating high internal homogeneity.
• National Strength and Order: α = .81 (4 items), indicating an exceptionally cohesive construct given the small number of items.
• Traditional Religiosity: α = .70 (4 items), representing adequate consistency across theological and moral dimensions.
• Personal Growth and Inner Harmony: α = .73 (6 items), reflecting solid reliability for complex self-actualization items.
• Physical Well-Being: α = .74 (3 items), demonstrating strong internal coherence for health-related values.
• Social Standing: α = .65 (3 items), an acceptable reliability coefficient for a brief exploratory scale.
• Secure and Satisfying Interpersonal Relationships: α = .68 (5 items), reflecting good reliability for intimate social bonds.
• Social Stimulation: α = .53 (2 items), a modest reliability value attributable directly to the brief 2-item length.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations utilizing larger cross-national cohorts have replicated these internal consistency metrics, frequently demonstrating alphas between .75 and .88 for the broader scales. Test-retest reliability across a four-week interval indicates stable temporal reproducibility, with product-moment correlation coefficients ranging from r = .71 to r = .86 across the primary subscales, confirming that the GSVI captures enduring value orientations rather than transient affective states.

Factor Analysis

The structural properties of the GSVI were originally identified through comprehensive exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and subsequent structural equation modeling (SEM). Braithwaite and Law (1985) subjected the expanded pool of value items to principal components analysis followed by orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations to delineate the empirical space.

The exploratory factor solutions revealed a clear distinction between societal-level goals and personal-level goals:

• Societal Value Factors: Factor analysis on the societal items yielded two dominant, orthogonal components. The first factor, accounting for the largest percentage of common variance, was International Harmony and Equality, marked by high loadings from items such as “A good life for others” (.72), “International cooperation” (.75), and “Equal opportunity for all” (.68). The second distinct societal factor was National Strength and Order, loaded heavily by “National security” (.79), “National greatness” (.74), and “The rule of law” (.68).
• Personal Value Factors: Factor analysis on the individual goal items extracted six primary factors: Personal Growth and Inner Harmony, Physical Well-Being, Traditional Religiosity, Social Standing, Secure Interpersonal Relationships, and Social Stimulation.

Subsequent confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) across diverse academic studies have evaluated higher-order structural configurations. A second-order factor model posits two overarching latent dimensions: (1) Collective/Humanistic Orientation (subsuming International Harmony, Ecological Concern, and Relational Security) and (2) Hierarchical/Individualistic Orientation (subsuming National Strength, Social Standing, and Order). Goodness-of-fit indices for these structural configurations typically meet standard psychometric thresholds: Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) ≤ .055, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) ≥ .92, and Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) ≤ .058, confirming the structural validity of the inventory across independent demographic samples.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Goal and Social Values Inventories (GSVI) is administered as an objective, self-report psychometric survey designed to capture both personal and societal value commitments without forced ranking.

• Administration Type: Self-administered paper-and-pencil or computerized questionnaire; suitable for individual or group administration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 10 to 15 minutes.
• Item Count: 43 items in total, each presented with a short clarifying descriptive phrase in parentheses to minimize ambiguity.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically ages 16 and older) possessing basic reading literacy.
• Response Format: A 7-point asymmetric rating scale designed specifically to permit active rejection of values as well as graded acceptance:
  • 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:
  • Items are grouped into their respective subscale dimensions.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by averaging the numerical ratings of the items comprising each dimension (mean scoring) or by summing them (raw total scoring). Mean scoring on the 1-7 scale is preferred as it preserves the original response metric and facilitates direct comparisons across subscales of varying lengths.
  • No items are reverse-scored, as all items are phrased positively toward their respective value concepts.
  • Higher scores represent greater psychological prioritization, internalization, and commitment to the corresponding personal or social value domain.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Goal and Social Values Inventories was formally established and published in 1985 by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The instrument was developed within an academic research setting and is generally considered to be in the public domain for academic, educational, and non-commercial scientific research purposes, subject to proper professional citation of the original 1985 publication.

No licensing fees or royalties are required for independent researchers, university faculty, or graduate students employing the scale for non-profit investigations. Researchers wishing to use the GSVI for commercial assessment, corporate consulting, or proprietary diagnostic platforms should contact the primary author (Prof. Valerie Braithwaite, Australian National University) or consult the copyright policies of the American Psychological Association (APA).

References

• Altemeyer, B. (1981). Right-wing authoritarianism. University of Manitoba Press.
• Braithwaite, V. A. (1998). The value balance model of political evaluations. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37(1), 101-123. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01160.x
• 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
• Gore, T. J. (2014). Goal orientations and self-efficacy interactions on self-set goal level (Master’s thesis). Wright State University. Wright State University Repository
• Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. Free Press.
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1-65). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6
• 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
• Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139175043

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)