Personal Beauty Values Scale (PBVS)

Abstract

The Personal Beauty Values Scale (PBVS) is a psychometrically validated, multidimensional self-report measurement instrument formulated to capture, quantify, and compare subjective beauty values across diverse cultural and geographic populations (Glückstad et al., 2025). Addressing a longstanding gap in cross-cultural consumer behavior, social psychology, and aesthetic philosophy, the PBVS systematically evaluates the normative, moral, physical, and interpersonal dimensions that govern human aesthetic appraisals of the self and others. The instrument is comprised of 14 purified items structured across five distinct, correlated latent dimensions: Cultural Flawlessness (CF), Social Appropriateness (SA), Self-Improvement (SI), Natural Uniqueness (NU), and Inner Beauty (IB). These subscales reflect both externally driven, conformity-oriented aesthetic standards and internally driven, authentic, and characterological definitions of physical and moral attractiveness. Responses are recorded on a six-point Likert-type response scale ranging from 1 (Very much applies) to 6 (Does not apply at all), which can be reverse-scored to indicate higher aesthetic endorsement.

Extensive cross-national validation across the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Denmark demonstrated robust psychometric properties. Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) demonstrated that the 14-item five-factor solution accounts for 71.071% of the total cumulative variance. Subsequent Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) affirmed an exceptional fit to the empirical data (χ² = 117.117, df = 67, CFI = 0.971, RMSEA = 0.047, SRMR = 0.048). Convergent validity was established with Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values consistently exceeding the 0.50 threshold, while discriminant validity was verified using the Heterotrait-Monotrait ratio of correlations (HTMT < 0.85). Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA) demonstrated full metric and scalar invariance across balanced age and gender segments, as well as full metric invariance across distinct cross-national groups. Nomological validity was corroborated via Structural Equation Modeling (SEM), revealing predictable associations with self-conscious emotions (shame, guilt, authentic pride, hubristic pride), self-objectification, and downstream behavioral considerations such as elective cosmetic surgery. The PBVS represents a foundational psychometric advancement for cross-cultural aesthetics, dermatological psychology, and consumer research.

Keywords

Personal Beauty Values Scale, PBVS, Aesthetic Values, Cross-Cultural Psychometrics, Cultural Flawlessness, Social Appropriateness, Natural Uniqueness, Inner Beauty, Cosmetic Surgery Consideration, Measurement Invariance

Authors

The Personal Beauty Values Scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by an international, interdisciplinary consortium of researchers spanning consumer behavior, sociology, cross-cultural quantitative methodology, and industrial aesthetic science:

• Fumiko Kano Glückstad (Corresponding Author) — Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark. Contact: [email protected]. Dr. Glückstad specializes in cross-cultural data analytics, intercultural communication, cognitive categorization, and international consumer behavior.
• Hiromi Kobayashi — KOSÉ Corporation Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. Kobayashi specializes in cosmetic dermatology, cosmetic sciences, and psychological drivers of skincare and beauty consumption.
• Daniel Seddig — Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony (KFN), Hannover, Germany; formerly affiliated with the Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne. Dr. Seddig is a quantitative methodologist specializing in structural equation modeling, longitudinal designs, and cross-national survey methodologies.
• Eldad Davidov — Institute of Sociology and Social Psychology, Faculty of Management, Economics and Social Sciences, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany; and Department of Sociology, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. ORCID: 0000-0002-3396-969X. Professor Davidov is a renowned authority on human values theory, structural equation modeling, and cross-national measurement invariance.
• Rie Nakamura — KOSÉ Corporation Research Laboratories, Tokyo, Japan. Nakamura conducts applied psychophysical, behavioral, and cross-cultural cosmetic research focusing on sensory evaluation and self-perception.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Personal Beauty Values Scale (PBVS) is to provide an empirically grounded, cross-culturally validated, and methodologically sound psychometric instrument capable of assessing the diverse values individuals attach to physical, social, and moral attractiveness (Glückstad et al., 2025). For decades, research in psychological aesthetics, body image, and consumer science operationalized physical appearance predominantly through narrow conceptualizations such as physical attractiveness stereotypes, body dissatisfaction inventories, or appearance orientation indices. While these prior instruments measure how attractive individuals perceive themselves to be or how intensely they scrutinize their physical flaws, they systematically fail to address what individuals actually value about beauty from an axiomatic, normative perspective.

Aesthetic values are deeply ingrained cognitive structures that dictate how an individual defines the essence, utility, and moral implications of human appearance. The PBVS was engineered to overcome Western-centric biases inherent in conventional psychometric measures of appearance. Across Western societies, beauty is often conceptualized through individualistic lenses emphasizing bodily symmetry, sexual dimorphism, and personal distinction. Conversely, in East Asian contexts such as Japan, aesthetic ideals are historically intertwined with concepts of interpersonal harmony, social decorum (reigi), diligent self-cultivation, and holistic morality. Without a multi-construct, culturally sensitive assessment tool, global comparative investigations into appearance-related cognitions have faced substantial measurement artifacts.

From an applied and clinical perspective, the PBVS fulfills multiple critical functions:

• Clinical and Counseling Psychology: It equips clinicians to discern the underlying cognitive and value-based drivers of body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), eating disorders, and appearance-related affective distress. For instance, differentiating whether an individual’s distress stems from failing to achieve socially mandated conformity (Social Appropriateness) versus an obsessive pursuit of perfectionism (Cultural Flawlessness) or self-discipline (Self-Improvement) allows for targeted cognitive restructuring.
• Consumer Psychology and Health Behavior: The PBVS directly predicts cosmetic, dermatological, and aesthetic medical interventions. Understanding which beauty dimensions mediate the transition from body surveillance to invasive surgical procedures provides public health specialists with insights into psychological vulnerability factors.
• Cross-Cultural Sociological Research: The scale enables cross-national researchers to assess how globalization, digital media, and commercial beauty ideals interact with indigenous, traditional value orientations across European, North American, and East Asian populations.

Psychological Construct

The Personal Beauty Values Scale evaluates personal beauty values as a multidimensional, five-factor psychological construct. These dimensions reflect the diverse normative beliefs individuals hold regarding what constitutes, justifies, and elevates beauty in human life. The five latent factors are defined as follows:

1. Cultural Flawlessness (CF)

Cultural Flawlessness captures the endorsement of standardized, idealized, and culturally sanctioned physical perfection. This dimension reflects an individual’s adherence to pristine, unblemished physical aesthetics as dictated by contemporary media, cultural gatekeepers, and aesthetic industries. Individuals scoring high on CF prioritize unblemished skin, precise bodily proportions, and adherence to pervasive physical ideals. Within the psychological architecture of the individual, CF is externally referenced; it operates as an internalized sociocultural benchmark against which physical deviations are perceived as deficits, frequently triggering appearance-contingent self-worth and body-focused anxiety.

2. Social Appropriateness (SA)

Social Appropriateness conceptualizes beauty as an interpersonal, context-dependent obligation aimed at demonstrating respect, politeness, and adherence to communal etiquette. Unlike CF, which emphasizes ideal physical perfection, SA focuses on functional and social conformity—grooming oneself so as not to cause discomfort to others, upholding group harmony, and fitting into established professional or communal environments. Prominently rooted in collectivist norms and contextual social propriety (such as the Japanese concept of tashinami or grooming as etiquette), SA values beauty not as narcissistic display, but as a prosocial duty signaling conscientiousness and social maturity.

3. Self-Improvement (SI)

The Self-Improvement dimension frames beauty as a dynamic, malleable outcome of personal agency, effort, diligence, and continuous cultivation. This construct reflects the belief that appearance is not merely an unalterable genetic endowment, but rather a reflection of self-discipline, hygiene, routine maintenance, and behavioral investment. Individuals who strongly endorse SI view aesthetic practices (e.g., rigorous skincare regimens, physical training, styling) as laudable expressions of self-mastery and personal growth. SI connects aesthetic practices with proactive self-actualization and the moral imperative of maximizing one’s physical potential.

4. Natural Uniqueness (NU)

Natural Uniqueness represents an ideological rejection of homogenized, manufactured, or surgically altered physical standards in favor of authenticity, idiosyncratic traits, and unadorned organic presentation. This dimension values individuality, bodily diversity, and the aesthetic integrity of one’s natural heritage. High scorers on NU perceive unconventional or non-standardized facial and bodily features as intrinsically beautiful because they manifest true individuality. NU fosters psychological resilience against harmful appearance comparisons by de-escalating conformity pressure and celebrating biological authenticity.

5. Inner Beauty (IB)

Inner Beauty captures the moral, spiritual, and characterological dimension of aesthetics, wherein physical appearance is perceived as inseparable from, or secondary to, psychological virtues. Under this value system, true beauty is manifested through kindness, compassion, emotional warmth, integrity, and intellectual depth. IB reflects a holistic philosophical orientation that transcends somatic evaluation, asserting that outward radiance is an authentic reflection of inner psychological equilibrium and ethical virtue.

Theoretical Framework

The development of the Personal Beauty Values Scale is anchored in several foundational paradigms within social psychology, value theory, and cognitive sociology:

Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values

The conceptual blueprint of the PBVS is directly informed by Shalom H. Schwartz’s Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz, 1992, 2012). Schwartz defines values as trans-situational, desirable goals that vary in importance and serve as guiding principles in people’s lives. In this framework, values are organized along two higher-order bipolar dimensions: Openness to Change versus Conservation, and Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence.

The five dimensions of the PBVS map systematically onto this circular motivational continuum:

• Conservation (Conformity, Tradition, Security): Reflected in Social Appropriateness and Cultural Flawlessness, where beauty serves social cohesion, normative alignment, and protection against interpersonal rejection.
• Openness to Change (Self-Direction): Reflected in Natural Uniqueness, which emphasizes individual autonomy, distinctiveness, and resistance to rigid external norms.
• Self-Enhancement (Achievement, Power): Intersects with Self-Improvement, where disciplined aesthetic investment demonstrates competence, personal ambition, and mastery over one’s body.
• Self-Transcendence (Benevolence, Universalism): Congruent with Inner Beauty, where personal worth is detached from competitive physical comparisons and redirected toward moral virtues and prosocial care.

Objectification Theory and Sociocultural Pressures

The PBVS is also grounded in Objectification Theory (Fredrickson & Roberts, 1997). This model posits that cultural environments frequently reduce individuals to physical objects evaluated primarily for their visual utility. By isolating Cultural Flawlessness from other beauty values, the PBVS allows researchers to evaluate how the cognitive internalization of objectifying cultural standards differs from autonomous, authentic aesthetic values such as Natural Uniqueness and Inner Beauty. While cultural flawlessness reinforces chronic body surveillance and appearance-contingent self-worth, natural uniqueness and inner beauty act as protective buffers that mitigate self-objectification.

Cross-Cultural Indigenous Psychologies and Self-Construal

The theoretical architecture incorporates Markus and Kitayama’s (1991) theory of independent versus interdependent self-construals. In Western, individualistic contexts, beauty values predominantly emphasize personal distinction, individual achievement, and physical allure. Conversely, in East Asian contexts characterized by interdependent self-construals, aesthetics are fundamentally interpersonal. The inclusion of Social Appropriateness reflects cultural paradigms in which personal appearance is evaluated based on whether it preserves relational harmony, exhibits social etiquette, and shows respect toward the collective community.

Validity

The psychometric evaluation of the PBVS across multiple international cohorts (the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, and Denmark) established comprehensive evidence for construct, convergent, discriminant, and nomological validity (Glückstad et al., 2025).

Convergent Validity

Convergent validity evaluates the extent to which indicators of a specific latent construct share a high proportion of common variance. In the final structural models, convergent validity was rigorously demonstrated using the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) criterion (Fornell & Larcker, 1981). Across the evaluated samples, the AVE scores for all five latent dimensions exceeded the established psychometric benchmark of 0.50, demonstrating that the variance explained by the latent factors surpasses the variance attributable to measurement error.

Discriminant Validity

Discriminant validity was established to confirm that the five subscales represent statistically distinct constructs rather than overlapping dimensions. The evaluation employed the conservative Heterotrait-Monotrait Ratio of Correlations (HTMT) proposed by Henseler, Ringle, and Sarstedt (2015). All pairwise HTMT values between Cultural Flawlessness, Social Appropriateness, Self-Improvement, Natural Uniqueness, and Inner Beauty fell strictly below the conservative threshold of 0.85. This confirms that each subscale occupies a distinct empirical space within the broader nomological network of aesthetic values.

Nomological and Criterion Validity

Nomological validity was empirically demonstrated via structural equation modeling (SEM) linking the PBVS dimensions to a battery of affective, cognitive, and behavioral outcome constructs:

• Self-Conscious Affect: The PBVS dimensions displayed differentiated, theoretically coherent associations with moral and self-conscious emotions (Tangney & Tracy, 2012). Cultural Flawlessness demonstrated strong positive associations with maladaptive self-conscious affect, specifically body shame and appearance-related guilt. Conversely, Natural Uniqueness and Inner Beauty were negatively related to shame and positively associated with authentic pride (pride rooted in self-worth, effort, and genuine achievement).
• Hubristic Pride vs. Authentic Pride: Cultural Flawlessness and Self-Improvement were positively associated with hubristic pride (narcissistic, status-seeking, and arrogant appearance beliefs). In contrast, Inner Beauty was negatively related to hubristic pride.
• Body Surveillance and Self-Objectification: Strong endorsement of Cultural Flawlessness significantly predicted heightened levels of chronic self-objectification and body surveillance, whereas Natural Uniqueness negatively predicted surveillance tendencies.
• Consideration of Cosmetic Surgery: Demonstrating powerful criterion validity, structural mediation models revealed that the extrinsic, conformity-driven dimensions (Social Appropriateness, Cultural Flawlessness, and Self-Improvement) exerted significant direct and indirect effects on individuals’ willingness to undergo elective cosmetic surgery. These effects were systematically mediated through elevated feelings of shame and hubristic pride. In contrast, Natural Uniqueness exhibited an inverse relationship with cosmetic surgery intentions.

Reliability

The PBVS demonstrated sound internal consistency and temporal stability across independent adult cohorts in Western and East Asian populations.

Internal Consistency

Internal consistency was assessed using both classical test theory metrics (Cronbach’s alpha, α) and composite reliability / model-based metrics (McDonald’s omega, ω_total; Hayes & Coutts, 2020; McDonald, 1999):

• Cultural Flawlessness (CF): Demonstrated excellent internal consistency, with both α and ω consistently exceeding 0.80 across cultural subsamples.
• Natural Uniqueness (NU): Exhibited high internal consistency, with α and ω values falling between 0.78 and 0.84.
• Self-Improvement (SI): Yielded robust reliability coefficients, maintaining α and ω values consistently above 0.75.
• Inner Beauty (IB): Demonstrated strong internal reliability, with coefficients consistently surpassing 0.77.
• Social Appropriateness (SA): Exhibited reliability coefficients slightly below the traditional 0.70 heuristic in select regional sub-samples (approximating 0.67–0.69). However, given that SA is composed of a concise item set intentionally capturing broad contextual etiquette across distinct social domains, these values are considered psychometrically acceptable and methodologically sound for short subscales (Cortina, 1993).

Temporal Stability (Test-Retest Reliability)

To evaluate temporal stability, a test-retest longitudinal study was administered with a standardized interval of 14 to 20 days between measurement waves. Stability was evaluated using two-way mixed, single-measure Intraclass Correlation Coefficients (ICC), reflecting moderate to high temporal stability:

• Natural Uniqueness (NU): ICC = 0.609
• Cultural Flawlessness (CF): ICC = 0.589
• Social Appropriateness (SA): ICC = 0.571
• Inner Beauty (IB): ICC = 0.507
• Self-Improvement (SI): ICC = 0.505
• Overall PBV Construct Composite: ICC = 0.676

These test-retest indices affirm that personal beauty values function as relatively enduring, trait-like cognitive-evaluative structures over time, while retaining sufficient contextual sensitivity to reflect personal developmental transitions.

Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the PBVS was established through a sequential, rigorous psychometric refinement protocol involving item generation, Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Multi-Group Invariance Testing (Glückstad et al., 2025).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Scale Purification

The scale development began with an initial pool of 27 candidate items drafted in English to capture the theoretical breadth of the five hypothetical beauty value domains. Following rigorous translation and back-translation protocols into Japanese and Danish adhering to cross-cultural methodological frameworks (Engelen et al., 2016; Zavala-Rojas, 2017), the item pool was administered to large calibration samples.

Exploratory factor analyses utilizing maximum likelihood extraction with oblique rotation (promax/geomin) were conducted. Items with low primary factor loadings (< 0.50), high cross-loadings (> 0.30 on secondary factors), or poor conceptual specificity were removed. This iterative purification eliminated 13 items, producing an optimal, parsimonious 14-item configuration across the five latent factors. The cumulative variance explained by this refined five-factor model reached an impressive 71.071%, demonstrating robust construct capture with minimal item redundancy.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

The hypothesized 14-item, five-factor structure was subsequently tested on independent validation samples across multiple countries using Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Robust maximum likelihood estimation was employed. The global goodness-of-fit indices demonstrated an exceptional fit to the data, satisfying all modern psychometric benchmarks (Hu & Bentler, 1999):

• Degrees of Freedom (df): 67
• Chi-Square (χ²): 117.117 (p < .001)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): 0.971 (benchmark > 0.95 indicates superior fit)
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): 0.047 (90% CI [0.033, 0.060]; benchmark < 0.05 indicates close fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): 0.048 (benchmark < 0.08 indicates acceptable fit)

Standardized factor loadings across all 14 items were statistically significant (p < .001) and substantial, ranging from 0.62 to 0.88, confirming robust indicator reliability.

Measurement Invariance Across Demographics and Nations

To confirm that the PBVS measures the same conceptual constructs with equivalent calibration across diverse subpopulations, Multi-Group Confirmatory Factor Analysis (MG-CFA) was conducted across demographic segments and national boundaries:

• Age and Gender Invariance: MG-CFA conducted across four balanced age-and-gender demographic segments established both metric invariance (equal factor loadings, allowing valid comparison of structural regression paths and covariances) and scalar invariance (equal item intercepts, allowing meaningful, unbiased comparisons of latent factor means).
• Cross-National Invariance: MG-CFA across six cross-national demographic groups (males and females across the United States, Japan, and Denmark) established full cross-group metric invariance. This psychometric achievement proves that the underlying constructs operate identically across distinct Western (Anglo-American, Scandinavian) and East Asian (Japanese) linguistic and cultural settings.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The structural characteristics, administration guidelines, and scoring procedures for the Personal Beauty Values Scale are summarized below:

• Instrument Name: Personal Beauty Values Scale (PBVS)
• Authors: Fumiko Kano Glückstad, Hiromi Kobayashi, Daniel Seddig, Eldad Davidov, and Rie Nakamura (2025)
• Target Population: General adult consumer and clinical populations (aged 18 years and older)
• Instrument Type: Multidimensional self-report psychological inventory / psychometric questionnaire
• Administration Mode: Electronic (computer-assisted web interviewing / online survey platforms) or supervised paper-and-pencil administration
• Estimated Completion Time: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes
• Total Number of Items: 14 purified items
• Dimensional Structure: 5 correlated latent subscales:
  • Cultural Flawlessness (CF): Measures adherence to standardized, immaculate cultural appearance ideals.
  • Social Appropriateness (SA): Measures adherence to contextual grooming etiquette, personal cleanliness, and interpersonal decorum.
  • Self-Improvement (SI): Measures the valuation of beauty as an outcome of personal effort, discipline, and active somatic cultivation.
  • Natural Uniqueness (NU): Measures the appreciation of biological authenticity, idiosyncratic bodily features, and anti-homogenization values.
  • Inner Beauty (IB): Measures the belief that personal character, moral virtues, and warmth constitute essential beauty.
• Response Format: Six-point Likert-type scale anchored as follows:
  • 1 = Very much applies
  • 2 = Applies
  • 3 = Somewhat applies
  • 4 = Does not apply much
  • 5 = Does not apply
  • 6 = Does not apply at all
• Scoring and Computational Procedures:
  • Reverse-Scoring Convention: In practical psychometric and statistical applications, researcher standard practice typically involves reverse-coding the raw numeric responses (e.g., transforming 1 → 6, 2 → 5, 3 → 4, 4 → 3, 5 → 2, 6 → 1) so that higher numerical values systematically represent stronger endorsement of that specific beauty value.
  • Subscale Scores: Calculated by computing the unweighted mean or sum of the items corresponding to each respective dimension. Mean scoring (ranging from 1.00 to 6.00 per dimension) is recommended for straightforward cross-subscale and cross-cultural comparisons.
  • Total Scale Usage: While an overall aggregate composite score can be computed to represent generalized aesthetic value intensity (ICC = 0.676), the primary utility of the PBVS lies in profile analysis across its five distinct dimensions. Combining all subscales into a single unidimensional index obscures critical divergent patterns (e.g., contrasting high Cultural Flawlessness with high Natural Uniqueness).
• Available Validated Language Versions: English, Japanese, and Danish.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Personal Beauty Values Scale (PBVS) was officially published in 2025 in the Journal of Consumer Behaviour (Glückstad et al., 2025).

• Copyright and Proprietary Ownership: The conceptual framework, validation data, and specific item wording are copyrighted by the authors and the publisher (John Wiley & Sons Ltd).
• Academic and Non-Commercial Research Use: The PBVS may be utilized by academic scholars, clinicians, and university researchers for non-commercial educational and scientific research purposes, subject to formal permission and customary scholarly citation of the original source publication.
• Commercial Licensing and Industrial Applications: For commercial deployments—including market research, proprietary commercial surveys, cosmetic product development, and industry consumer profiling—formal licensing agreements and explicit written permissions must be secured.
• Usage Fee: Academic and scholarly non-profit research is exempt from licensing fees (Fee: No / $0 for non-commercial research).
• Correspondence and Permissions Contact: Inquiries regarding access to the complete instrument, authorized translations, and commercial permissions should be directed to the corresponding author:
  
  Dr. Fumiko Kano Glückstad
  
  Department of Management, Society and Communication, Copenhagen Business School
  
  Email: [email protected]

References

• Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(1), 98–104. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.1.98
• Engelen, A., Engelen, C., & Samuel Craig, C. (2016). Cross-cultural research in international marketing: Clearing the hurdles of translation. International Marketing Review, 33(4), 580–600. https://doi.org/10.1108/IMR-07-2014-0238
• Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
• Fredrickson, B. L., & Roberts, T.-A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(2), 173–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
• Glückstad, F. K., Kobayashi, H., Seddig, D., Davidov, E., & Nakamura, R. (2025). Personal beauty values: Development and validation of a multidimensional measurement scale. Journal of Consumer Behaviour, 24(1), 282–303. https://doi.org/10.1002/cb.2421
• Hayes, A. F., & Coutts, J. J. (2020). Use omega rather than Cronbach’s alpha for estimating reliability. But…. Communication Methods and Measures, 14(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312458.2020.1718629
• Henseler, J., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2015). A new criterion for assessing discriminant validity in variance-based structural equation modeling. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 43(1), 115–135. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747-014-0403-8
• Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
• Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
• McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
• 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. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), Article 11. https://doi.org/10.9707/2307-0919.1116
• Tangney, J. P., & Tracy, J. L. (2012). Self-conscious emotions. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of Self and Identity (2nd ed., pp. 446–478). The Guilford Press.
• Zavala-Rojas, D. (2017). Evaluating the comparability of measurement items in cross-national surveys: A focus on translation. In J. Harkness et al. (Eds.), Survey Methods in Multinational, Multiregional, and Multicultural Contexts (pp. 141–160). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119163558.ch8

Items of the Scale