Value Attainment Scale

1. Abstract

The Value Attainment Scale represents an operational psychometric adaptation of the terminal values dimension from Milton Rokeach’s seminal Rokeach Value Survey (RVS), tailored specifically to assess the degree to which individuals realize, attain, or experience fulfillment of core, deeply held human end states within their social, personal, and occupational contexts. Originally introduced in foundational value theory by Rokeach (1973) as an ipsative rank-ordering taxonomy of 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values, the construct was subsequently reconceptualized by organizational and social psychologists (e.g., Brief, Dukerich, & Doran, 1991; George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter, Perrewé, Ferris, & Brymer, 1999) into normative rating scales to gauge personal value realization and organizational value affordance. In this psychometric configuration, respondents assess 18 distinct terminal values (e.g., A comfortable life, A sense of accomplishment, Freedom, Inner harmony) utilizing a 7-point Likert-type response format ranging from 1 (“least important” or “attained to a very small extent”) to 7 (“most important” or “attained to a very great extent”), or through comparative ranking methods. Psychometric investigations across diverse corporate, healthcare, and educational samples indicate high internal consistency reliability, with Cronbach’s alpha coefficients routinely spanning between .85 and .93 for the omnibus terminal attainment scale. Structural equation modeling and confirmatory factor analyses validate its multidimensional conceptualization, differentiating self-centered (personal) from society-centered (collective) terminal end states. Criterion-related and construct validity studies demonstrate robust correlations: attainment of terminal values correlates positively with overall job satisfaction, subjective well-being, contextual and task performance, and employee positive affectivity, while exhibiting sustained negative associations with occupational withdrawal, burnout, turnover intentions, and negative affectivity. Consequently, the Value Attainment Scale serves as an essential psychometric instrument for scholars and practitioners examining person-environment fit, vocational fulfillment, executive leadership orientation, and existential psychological health.

2. Keywords

Value Attainment Scale, Rokeach Value Survey, Terminal Values, Instrumental Values, Value Fulfillment, Person-Organization Fit, Job Satisfaction, Employee Well-Being, Psychometrics, Affective Realization, Vocational Fulfillment, Likert Scaling

3. Authors

The foundational theoretical framework, construct definition, and primary items of the scale were originated by Milton Rokeach (1918–1988), Professor of Sociology and Psychology at Michigan State University and subsequently Washington State University. Rokeach’s seminal 1973 monograph, The Nature of Human Values, established the universal classification of human values into instrumental modes of conduct and terminal end states of existence.

Subsequent psychometric adaptations transitioning the ipsative rank-order items into Likert-type and normative value attainment instruments within organizational and behavioral settings were developed and validated by organizational behavior researchers, prominently including:

• Arthur P. Brief — Tulane University, Department of Organizational Behavior, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA.
• Jennifer M. George — Mary Gibbs Jones Professor of Management and Professor of Psychology, Jesse H. Jones Graduate School of Business, Rice University, Houston, Texas, USA.
• Gareth R. Jones — Department of Management, Mays Business School, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA.
• Wayne A. Hochwarter — Jim Moran Professor of Management, Department of Management, College of Business, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
• Pamela L. Perrewé — Haywood and Betty Taylor Eminent Scholar of Business Administration, Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
• Gerald R. Ferris — Department of Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA.
• Bradley R. Agle — George Romney Professor of Leadership and Ethics, Marriott School of Business, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, USA.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the Value Attainment Scale is to quantify the subjective degree to which fundamental, overarching terminal human values are attained, realized, or reinforced through an individual’s primary life structures, specifically within occupational, organizational, and social ecosystems. In classic psychology, values serve as internalized prescriptive standards and guiding principles that structure an individual’s worldview, motivational prioritization, and moral framework. However, while traditional psychological instruments assessed solely the abstract importance an individual attaches to a given value, organizational and clinical researchers recognized that distress, alienation, vocational disengagement, and psychological malaise often stem not from the mere endorsement of a value, but from the experiential discrepancy between value importance and actual value attainment.

From an applied organizational perspective, the scale evaluates the degree to which an employee’s daily work tasks, organizational climate, managerial leadership, and cultural rewards permit the concrete attainment of desirable end states (such as A sense of accomplishment, Family security, Self-respect, or Inner harmony). When organizations facilitate value attainment, workers experience heightened psychological congruence, manifested in enhanced organizational citizenship behaviors, diminished somatic strain, reduced turnover intentions, and greater vitality. Conversely, when an organization frustrates or impedes the attainment of core terminal values, employees experience psychological breach, existential frustration, emotional exhaustion, and cognitive detachment.

In clinical, counseling, and existential research, the Value Attainment Scale provides clinicians with granular insight into the client’s internal value hierarchy and subjective existential fulfillment. It assists practitioners in identifying domains of existential vacuum or cognitive dissonance where cherished values (e.g., Freedom, True friendship, Wisdom) are systematically thwarted by interpersonal relationships, lifestyle constraints, or career paths. By differentiating between self-centered terminal values (focused on personal enhancement) and society-centered terminal values (focused on collective flourishing), the scale enables nuanced clinical mapping of narcissistic entitlement versus community-oriented engagement, providing targeted baselines for therapeutic interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) and Logotherapy.

5. Psychological Construct

The core psychological construct measured by this instrument is Value Attainment, defined as the perceived realization, actualization, and daily experiential satisfaction of overarching terminal life objectives within one’s environment. Rooted in Rokeach’s (1973) taxonomy, values are stable, enduring, trans-situational beliefs regarding preferable modes of conduct or desirable end-states of existence. The scale delineates these into two fundamental sub-dimensions:

Terminal Values: End States of Existence

Terminal values represent the ultimate, superordinate psychological goals that individuals actively pursue throughout the lifespan. These are not transitory desires, but categorical imperatives that give meaning, purpose, and coherence to identity. The Value Attainment Scale operationalizes 18 universal terminal values, organized into two recognized theoretical clusters:

• Self-Centered (Personal / Individualistic) Terminal Values: Values centered upon personal fulfillment, private contentment, individual achievement, and personal security. Examples include: A comfortable life (a prosperous life), An exciting life (a stimulating, active life), A sense of accomplishment (lasting contribution), Freedom (independence, free choice), Happiness (contentedness), Inner harmony (freedom from inner conflict), Pleasure (an enjoyable, leisurely life), Saved (eternal life), and Self-respect (self-esteem). Attainment in this domain reflects ego integrity, hedonic and eudaimonic personal well-being, and personal efficacy.
• Society-Centered (Social / Collective) Terminal Values: Values oriented toward relational harmony, interpersonal bonds, social justice, and broad humanitarian welfare. Examples include: A world at peace (free of war and conflict), A world of beauty (beauty of nature and the arts), Equality (brotherhood, equal opportunity for all), Family security (taking care of loved ones), Mature love (sexual and spiritual intimacy), National security (protection from attack), Social recognition (respect, admiration), and True friendship (close companionship). Attainment within these items gauges prosocial integration, communal connection, and social contribution.

Contrast with Instrumental Values

While the Value Attainment Scale in applied organizational scholarship focuses predominantly on the 18 terminal values as the evaluative metrics of end-state realization, the overarching Rokeach framework also contrasts these with 18 instrumental values, which represent the behavioral modes, character traits, or operational conduct utilized to attain those ends. Instrumental values are divided into:

• Moral-Focused Instrumental Values: Modes of conduct carrying an interpersonal ethical mandate, wherein violation triggers guilt or interpersonal rupture (e.g., Honest, Helpful, Forgiving, Loving, Responsible).
• Competence-Focused Instrumental Values: Modes of behavior focused on functional mastery, cognitive skill, or self-actualization, wherein failure induces feelings of inadequacy or shame (e.g., Capable, Logical, Intellectual, Independent, Self-controlled).

In value attainment paradigms, investigators assess whether an environment allows an individual to live congruently with both their instrumental behavioral preferences and their terminal aspirations, with terminal value attainment serving as the ultimate affective and cognitive criterion of life and career satisfaction.

6. Theoretical Framework

The Value Attainment Scale is anchored at the intersection of Milton Rokeach’s Cognitive-Affective Value Theory, Self-Determination Theory (SDT), and modern Person-Environment Fit Theory.

Rokeach’s Universal Value Architecture

Rokeach (1973) posited that the human value system is structurally universal, highly stable, yet hierarchically prioritized. Unlike transient attitudes (which focus on specific objects or situations), values are abstract standards that judge actions, justify conduct, guide self-presentation, and resolve conflicts. Rokeach asserted that total human values are relatively small in number (precisely 36 in his canon: 18 terminal and 18 instrumental) and shared across cultures, although their relative prioritization varies across individuals and societies. The conceptual transition from measuring purely nominal priority to measuring attainment reflects the theoretical premise that psychological equilibrium relies on the active congruence between an individual’s internalized value priorities and the affordances of their immediate social structures.

Person-Environment (P-E) Fit and Locke’s Value-Percept Theory

The operationalization of value attainment within industrial and organizational psychology derives theoretical momentum from Edwin A. Locke’s (1976) Value-Percept Theory of job satisfaction. Locke asserted that job satisfaction is not merely a function of what an individual receives from a job, but rather the perceived relationship between what one wants (their values) and what one perceives oneself as receiving (value attainment). When an individual’s primary values align with organizational affordances (supplementary fit) and the environment provides opportunities to fulfill these values, psychological strain decreases, and self-actualization emerges. George and Jones (1996) expanded this architecture by demonstrating that terminal value attainment serves as a critical cognitive filter: when high terminal value attainment is present, negative work events are interpreted with psychological resilience; when value attainment is absent, stressors induce acute psychological withdrawal.

Eudaimonic Psychological Well-Being and SDT

In humanistic and developmental psychology, value attainment operationalizes aspects of Abraham Maslow’s hierarchy of needs and Ryan and Deci’s Self-Determination Theory. Values such as Self-respect, Freedom, Wisdom, and A sense of accomplishment map directly onto the universal psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Consequently, the attainment of terminal values is conceptualized theoretically not merely as hedonic pleasure, but as eudaimonic thriving—the subjective realization of a meaningful, coherent, and purpose-driven life narrative.

7. Validity

Extensive empirical investigations have evaluated the construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity of the Value Attainment Scale across diverse organizational and academic cohorts.

Construct and Factorial Validity

Construct validity has been substantiated through confirmatory factor analytic studies evaluating both full-scale 18-item profiles and specialized sub-dimensions. Agle, Mitchell, and Sonnenfeld (1999) validated an eight-item subset of terminal values designed to assess CEO motivational orientations, isolating clear structural distinctions between self-focused terminal values (e.g., A comfortable life, Pleasure, Social recognition) and other-focused terminal values (e.g., A world at peace, Equality, Family security). Factor loadings across studies routinely exceed .50 for assigned latent factors, supporting the theoretical delineation between self-centered and collective attainment.

Convergent and Discriminant Validity

Convergent validity is evidenced by moderate-to-strong correlations with established constructs of subjective well-being, life satisfaction (Diener et al.’s SWLS, exhibiting correlations ranging between r = .42 and .58), and meaningful work inventories. Discriminant validity has been rigorously demonstrated by separating terminal value attainment from general dispositional affectivity. Utilizing longitudinal designs, George and Jones (1996) and Hochwarter et al. (1999) established that while positive affectivity (PA) and negative affectivity (NA)—measured via the PANAS—correlate with value attainment, terminal value attainment accounts for substantial unique variance in workplace outcomes after controlling completely for underlying affective dispositions.

Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity

The predictive power of the Value Attainment Scale is demonstrated across multiple organizational indices:

• Job Satisfaction: Terminal value attainment demonstrates robust positive associations with overall job satisfaction, with reported correlations routinely spanning from r = .45 to .62 (p < .001) (George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter et al., 1999).
• Job Performance: Value attainment consistently predicts both objective and supervisor-rated contextual and task performance (r = .24 to .38, p < .01), illustrating that employees who realize their core life goals via work invest higher discretionary effort.
• Turnover Intentions and Withdrawal: Negative correlations between value attainment and turnover intentions are pronounced (r = -.36 to -.52, p < .001). When value attainment is impeded, employee resignation cognitions rise sharply.
• Affective Dispositions and Strain: Attainment correlates positively with employee positive affectivity (r = .35 to .48) and negatively with employee negative affectivity, depressive symptoms, and somatic complaints (r = -.28 to -.44) (Hochwarter et al., 1999).

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Value Attainment Scale has been extensively evaluated across ipsative and normative measurement methodologies.

Internal Consistency

When administered using normative Likert-type scaling formats (evaluating either the degree of importance or the extent of attainment), the omnibus 18-item terminal values scale demonstrates excellent internal consistency. Published psychometric assessments report:

• George and Jones (1996) documented coefficient alpha values ranging from .85 to .89 across longitudinal organizational survey waves.
• Hochwarter, Perrewé, Ferris, and Brymer (1999), in their investigation of service sector professionals and managers, reported Cronbach’s alpha coefficients spanning from .88 to .93 for the Likert-adapted terminal value attainment scale.
• Sub-dimensional analyses (e.g., self-centered vs. society-centered subsets) report acceptable to high internal consistencies, typically ranging from .78 to .86 (Agle et al., 1999).

Test-Retest Stability

In Rokeach’s original psychometric studies (1973), test-retest reliability for the terminal values was evaluated over intervals ranging from 3 weeks to 14 months using Spearman rank-order correlation coefficients (rho). Over a 7-week interval, individual terminal value stability averaged between .70 and .80, confirming that value systems are deeply anchored cognitive structures. When measured as a dynamic state of attainment within a specific organization or life chapter, test-retest correlations over a 6-month interval hover around r = .65 to .72, reflecting both construct stability and sensitivity to changing environmental conditions.

9. Factor Analysis

The underlying factorial architecture of the Rokeach Value Survey items when administered in value attainment paradigms has been the subject of extensive Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Structure

Early factorial inquiries (e.g., Feather, 1975; Rokeach, 1973) extracted between two and seven underlying latent dimensions from the 18 terminal values, depending on rotation criteria and sample characteristics. However, across organizational research contexts, two stable higher-order latent factors consistently emerge:

1. Self-Directed / Individualistic Attainment: Marked by strong, salient factor loadings (> .55) on items such as A comfortable life, An exciting life, A sense of accomplishment, Freedom, Pleasure, and Social recognition.
2. Other-Directed / Prosocial Attainment: Marked by substantial factor loadings (> .50) on items such as A world at peace, Equality, Family security, Mature love, and A world of beauty.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis and Model Fit

Contemporary structural investigations using maximum likelihood CFA have tested both unidimensional (single omnibus attainment factor) and multidimensional configurations. CFA fit indices from organizational samples (e.g., Brief et al., 1991; Hochwarter et al., 1999) reveal that a two-factor correlated model (Self-Centered vs. Society-Centered Attainment) demonstrates superior goodness-of-fit over an undifferentiated single-factor model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): .91 to .94
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): .90 to .93
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): .048 to .062 (90% CI [.041, .070])
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): .051 to .058
• Chi-Square / Degrees of Freedom Ratio (χ²/df): Typically < 2.5, indicating adequate to robust structural alignment.

Standardized factor loadings for the 18 terminal items within their respective latent domains generally range between .46 and .81, confirming that each specific terminal value contributes meaningfully to the broader construct of value realization.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Value Attainment Scale is a standardized, self-report psychological instrument adaptable for both normative Likert-type scaling and ipsative ranking protocols.

• Instrument Type: Self-report psychometric questionnaire / rating inventory.
• Target Population: Working adults, university students, organizational leaders, and clinical counseling populations.
• Administration Format: Individual or group administration; available via paper-and-pencil, computer-assisted web interviews (CAWI), or interactive diagnostic portals.
• Item Count: 18 terminal value items (with an accompanying 18 instrumental value items available in complete Rokeach survey configurations).
• Response Scale (Likert-type format): Evaluated on a 7-point Likert-type scale, where:
  • 1 = Least important / Attained to a very small extent
  • 2 = Low importance / Attained to a small extent
  • 3 = Slightly important / Attained to a slight extent
  • 4 = Moderately important / Attained to a moderate extent
  • 5 = Important / Attained to a considerable extent
  • 6 = Highly important / Attained to a great extent
  • 7 = Most important / Attained to a very great extent
• Alternative Format (Ipsative Ranking): Respondents rank-order the 18 items from 1 (Most important / Most attained) to 18 (Least important / Least attained).
• Scoring Procedures:
  • Omnibus Attainment Score: Sum or arithmetic mean across all 18 items (theoretical range: 18 to 126 for Likert sum; 1.00 to 7.00 for mean scores). Higher scores indicate greater overall terminal value attainment.
  • Self-Centered Attainment Subscale: Mean score across individual-focused items (e.g., items 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15, 16).
  • Society-Centered Attainment Subscale: Mean score across collective-focused items (e.g., items 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 12, 17, 18).
  • Value Discrepancy Index: Calculated in advanced research designs by subtracting value attainment ratings from baseline value importance ratings (|Importance − Attainment|), yielding a direct metric of existential value frustration.
• Completion Time: Approximately 5 to 10 minutes for Likert-type rating; 15 to 25 minutes for full ipsative rank-ordering.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The foundational scale items were originally formulated and published in 1973 by Milton Rokeach in his landmark text, The Nature of Human Values (The Free Press / Simon & Schuster, Inc.). Items were specifically extracted from Table 2.1 (p. 28) and Appendix A (pp. 359–361). Subsequent adaptations for organizational value attainment were introduced throughout the 1990s (Brief et al., 1991; George & Jones, 1996; Hochwarter et al., 1999).

Licensing and Academic Permissions: The original text and item descriptions were published and copyrighted © 1973 by The Free Press, a Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc. For non-commercial academic research, pedagogical purposes, and scholarly theses, the individual 18 terminal items are widely cited and utilized under standard fair-use academic provisions, provided that proper bibliographic attribution is granted to Rokeach (1973) and Simon & Schuster. For commercial use, inclusion in fee-for-service consulting packages, or large-scale digital psychometric software distribution, researchers and practitioners must obtain formal licensing permission from Simon & Schuster, Inc. / The Free Press or the authorized copyright administrator.

12. References

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. (1999). Who matters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attributes and salience, corporate performance, and CEO values. Academy of Management Journal, 42(5), 507–525. https://doi.org/10.5465/256973

Brief, A. P., Dukerich, J. M., & Doran, L. I. (1991). Resolving ethical dilemmas in management: Experimental investigations of values, accountability, and decision-making. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21(5), 380–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1991.tb00526.x

Feather, N. T. (1975). The values in education and society. New York: Free Press.

George, J. M., & Jones, G. R. (1996). The experience of work and turnover intentions: Interactive effects of value attainment, job satisfaction, and positive mood. Journal of Applied Psychology, 81(3), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.81.3.318

Hochwarter, W. A., Perrewé, P. L., Ferris, G. R., & Brymer, R. A. (1999). Job satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior: The subtle influence of work-related value attainment and positive/negative affectivity. Journal of Business and Psychology, 13(3), 431–444. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022941306636

Locke, E. A. (1976). The nature and causes of job satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 1297–1349). Chicago: Rand McNally.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free Press.

13. Items of the Scale