Rokeach M. -1973-. The Nature Of Human Values. New York Free Press [best] ⟶ «DIRECT»

The consequences of value priorities are visible in all social phenomena, such as political or religious affiliation. Science Publications The Rokeach Value Survey (RVS) The primary contribution of the work is the Rokeach Value Survey (RVS)

If you are researching this text for a specific project, let me know if you would like to explore its , deep dive into the Two-Value political model , or analyze how it influenced Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values . Share public link

These represent the ultimate goals or "ends" an individual hopes to achieve during their lifetime.

Perhaps the most daring section of the book deals with value modification . In the 1970s, the dominant behaviorist view was that you change behavior through rewards/punishment. Rokeach argued that lasting change requires self-confrontation .

This list represents Rokeach's effort to select a set of universally relevant values that could be used to compare individuals and groups across different contexts. He created them from a long list of hundreds of possible values by reviewing literature from the U.S. and other countries. The consequences of value priorities are visible in

Values, Prejudice, and Social Attitudes A notable applied aspect of Rokeach’s work is his analysis of prejudice and authoritarianism in value terms. He argues that certain value configurations correlate with closed-mindedness or dogmatism; for example, rigid adherence to hierarchical, conformity-oriented values can predispose individuals to prejudice. Rokeach’s research connects value priorities to political and social attitudes, suggesting that interventions aimed at altering specific instrumental or terminal values may reduce intolerance. He also examines how societal institutions—education, religion, media—transmit and reinforce value systems.

🔑

Rokeach created the famous , asking people to rank 18 terminal values from "most important" to "least important." The least important slot is the painful one—it doesn't mean you reject that value, only that you would sacrifice it for others.

This is not a multiple-choice test. The ranking forces hard choices . You cannot say all values matter equally. In the real world of moral decision-making, we must sacrifice one value for another. The RVS measures the hierarchy of values —the order of priorities. Perhaps the most daring section of the book

Rokeach’s genius was not simply in compiling these lists but in the itself. By forcing participants to prioritize values against one another—rather than rating each in isolation—the RVS captures the inherently comparative nature of real‑world value judgments. In practice, the relative ranking of terminal and instrumental values has been shown to predict a surprisingly wide range of outcomes, from political affiliation and religious belief to career choices, consumer behavior, and even health practices.

Instead of asking respondents to rate values individually on a scale (which often results in people rating all values as highly important), the RVS requires participants to the 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values from 1 (most important) to 18 (least important).

– Rokeach was not content merely to describe and measure values; he wanted to know whether they could be changed . This section summarizes his theory of cognitive and behavioral change, explains the procedures for inducing and assessing value change, and describes a famous field experiment in which changes in values led to measurable changes in opinion for an entire small city in Washington State.

: These represent "end-states of existence"—the ultimate goals an individual hopes to achieve in their lifetime. This list represents Rokeach's effort to select a

Rokeach’s most significant contribution is his distinction between two functional categories of values, each consisting of 18 items:

"A value is an enduring belief that a specific mode of conduct or end-state of existence is personally or socially preferable to an opposite or converse mode of conduct or end-state of existence."

The book’s empirical backbone is the , a simple yet devastatingly effective tool. It presents the 18 terminal values alphabetically and asks respondents to rank them "in order of importance to YOU, as guiding principles in YOUR life" (1 = most important, 18 = least important). Then, they do the same for the 18 instrumental values.

Limitations and Critiques