Community Value Orientation (CVO)

Abstract

The Community Value Orientation (CVO) scale is a specialized psychometric instrument developed by consumer psychologists James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch in 2002. Constructed to measure the subjective importance an individual assigns to contributing to the welfare, vitality, and social cohesion of their broader community, the CVO scale plays a foundational role in assessing prosocial values within broader models of human motivation and well-being. Comprising 9 self-report items evaluated on a 5-point Likert response scale ranging from 1 (“Not at all important”) to 5 (“Extremely important”), the instrument assesses four primary interconnected operational facets: charitable financial donation, formal volunteering, civic participation, and informal neighbourly mutual support. Psychometrically, the instrument demonstrates robust internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients consistently reported between .83 and .88 across diverse adult and collegiate samples. Confirmatory factor analyses confirm either a robust single-factor higher-order construct or four closely correlated lower-order dimensions, displaying exceptional convergent validity with universalism, benevolence, and civic engagement, as well as distinct discriminant validity against related collective value constructs, including familial and religious values. Critically, the CVO scale was introduced to investigate the psychological friction between self-enhancement values—specifically materialism—and collective self-transcendent orientations, demonstrating that individuals who simultaneously endorse high materialism and high community value orientation experience heightened intrapsychic value conflict, leading to elevated stress and diminished subjective well-being. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the CVO scale's psychometric architecture, theoretical foundations, structural validity, and empirical applications across psychological disciplines.

Keywords

Community Value Orientation, CVO scale, prosocial behavior, civic engagement, collective values, materialism, value conflict theory, psychometrics, scale validation, Schwartz value theory, social capital, well-being

Authors

The Community Value Orientation scale was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• James E. Burroughs, Ph.D. — Professor of Commerce and Rolls-Royce Commonwealth Professor of Business Administration at the McIntire School of Commerce, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia, United States. His primary research domains encompass consumer psychology, creativity, social values, and the ethical dimensions of consumer decision-making.
• Aric Rindfleisch, Ph.D. — John M. Jones Professor of Marketing and Executive Director of the Illinois MakerLab at the Gies College of Business, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Illinois, United States. His scholarly inquiries center on materialism, customer co-creation, collaborative consumption, and the longitudinal impact of commercial culture on psychological health.

Inquiries regarding the scale's developmental datasets, psychometric validation studies, and theoretical adaptations can be addressed to the authors through their respective academic departments or via the original publication repository in the Journal of Consumer Research.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Community Value Orientation (CVO) scale is to measure the psychological significance and normative priority an individual assigns to advancing community welfare through collective, prosocial action. When Burroughs and Rindfleisch initiated their seminal research in the late 1990s and early 2000s, psychological and consumer literature possessed sophisticated instruments for assessing individualized and self-serving values (such as materialistic aspirations, prestige acquisition, and individual achievement), yet lacked concise, psychometrically rigorous measures dedicated specifically to assessing broad, communal-level prosocial investments outside the immediate familial or spiritual spheres.

To address this empirical gap, the authors engineered the CVO scale to serve several interconnected diagnostic and research purposes:

• Quantifying Communal and Prosocial Value Priorities: The instrument provides a standardized index capturing the degree to which an individual views active participation in local social ecosystems as a vital component of their personal identity and moral purpose.
• Investigating Intrapsychic Value Conflict: The CVO was purposefully designed to serve as a contrasting pole against self-enhancement values. By juxtaposing community values against materialistic values, researchers can evaluate the hypothesis that holding mutually incompatible life goals creates internal discord, anxiety, and lowered life satisfaction.
• Assessing Civic Health and Social Capital: Sociologists, community psychologists, and political scientists utilize the scale to evaluate individual predispositions toward generating social capital, predicting civic participation, voter mobilization, voluntary service hours, and local philanthropy.
• Cross-Disciplinary Applied Research: The scale serves organizational researchers examining corporate social responsibility (CSR) affinity among employees, non-profit sector analysts evaluating donor motivations, and public policy researchers investigating public compliance with community welfare initiatives, such as public health mandates and environmental conservation programs.

By capturing the cognitive and evaluative dimensions of prosocial motivation rather than mere historical behavior, the CVO scale enables behavioral scientists to understand the underlying value systems that drive sustainable, long-term prosocial commitments across diverse demographic cohorts.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct measured by the Community Value Orientation scale is rooted in the cognitive valuation of communal interdependence, prosocial altruism, and civic agency. It is conceptualized not as a temporary behavioral state or transient affective response, but as an enduring, trans-situational value orientation that guides an individual's evaluation of actions, policies, people, and events. Grounded in structural taxonomy, the CVO construct encompasses four primary operational facets, each representing a distinct modality through which community welfare is recognized, prioritized, and enacted:

1. Charitable Donation and Financial Stewardship

This facet assesses the degree to which an individual considers the allocation of their personal monetary or material resources to charitable entities, local foundations, and social aid organizations as an imperative duty. It evaluates the psychological willingness to detach from personal wealth accumulation to alleviate structural disadvantage, poverty, or underfunded communal resources. Individuals scoring high in this facet view financial stewardship as an essential mechanism of social equity, recognizing that private resources bear an inherent social responsibility toward the collective good.

2. Formal Volunteering and Labor Investment

Distinct from financial contributions, the volunteering facet reflects the perceived importance of dedicating uncompensated time, physical effort, and personal skills to structured service organizations, NGOs, schools, shelters, or community action groups. This dimension taps into the sacrifice of discretionary leisure time in favor of direct civic contribution, reflecting a personal value system where active, hands-on labor on behalf of vulnerable populations is deemed fundamental to a meaningful life.

3. Civic Participation and Democratic Engagement

Civic participation encapsulates the normative value assigned to active involvement in local governance, community forums, town halls, school boards, and civic advocacy movements. This dimension measures the extent to which an individual embraces democratic citizenship as an ongoing, participatory responsibility rather than a passive civil status. It reflects an orientation toward systemic problem-solving, community deliberation, and collaborative mobilization to improve municipal infrastructure, environmental conditions, and local administrative justice.

4. Neighbourly Support and Informal Mutual Aid

The neighbourly support dimension evaluates the perceived importance of maintaining micro-level, interpersonal prosocial ties within one's immediate residential proximity. This encompasses informal mutual aid behaviors, such as providing assistance to elderly or ill neighbors, watching over local children, participating in neighborhood watches, maintaining shared physical spaces, and fostering interpersonal trust among geographical co-residents. This facet ensures the CVO construct captures not only macro-institutional civic engagement, but also the grassroots social cohesion that constitutes the bedrock of community resiliency.

Collectively, these four facets operate symbiotically under the overarching CVO construct, reflecting an integrated motivational system oriented toward collective flourishing, mutual uplift, and social responsibility.

Theoretical Framework

The Community Value Orientation scale is fundamentally anchored in three major theoretical frameworks within contemporary psychology and sociology: Shalom Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values, Value Conflict Theory, and Social Capital Theory.

1. Schwartz's Circumplex Model of Human Values

The primary psychological foundation of the CVO scale derives from Shalom H. Schwartz's Theory of Basic Human Values (Schwartz, 1992). Schwartz established that human values are organized in a circular motivational structure characterized by two overarching orthogonal bipolar dimensions: Self-Enhancement versus Self-Transcendence, and Openness to Change versus Conservation.

Within this circular continuum, values positioned on opposite sides of the circumplex are theoretically and psychologically incompatible, while adjacent values are complementary:

• Self-Transcendence: Composed of Benevolence (preserving and enhancing the welfare of people with whom one is in frequent personal contact) and Universalism (understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature).
• Self-Enhancement: Composed of Power (social status, prestige, control, or dominance over people and resources) and Achievement (personal success through demonstrating competence according to social standards).

Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) positioned Community Value Orientation directly within the Self-Transcendence quadrant, bridging Benevolence and Universalism. While traditional Universalism can be broad and abstract, CVO operationalizes these values into concrete community-level structures. Crucially, Schwartz's framework postulates that pursuing self-transcendent goals actively conflicts with pursuing self-enhancement goals, setting the stage for psychological tension when both are simultaneously endorsed.

2. Value Conflict Theory and Psychological Tension

The second pillar informing the CVO is Value Conflict Theory, synthesized extensively by Burroughs and Rindfleisch from cognitive consistency traditions (e.g., Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory) and aspiration theories (e.g., Kasser & Ryan's work on intrinsic versus extrinsic aspirations). Burroughs and Rindfleisch hypothesized that the psychological distress commonly observed in highly materialistic individuals is not solely an inherent consequence of materialism itself, but is significantly amplified by the co-existence of conflicting collective values.

When an individual places high importance on self-enhancement (accumulating possessions, status, wealth) while concurrently endorsing high community value orientation (believing deeply in helping others, civic participation, and charitable giving), an acute state of psychological tension occurs. This internal friction arises because the behavioral strategies required to satisfy community values (sharing resources, allocating time to altruistic endeavors) directly undermine the behavioral imperatives of materialism (resource hoarding, status signaling). The CVO scale was engineered to operationalize this tension by serving as the primary collective-oriented metric in structural equation models testing value discordance.

3. Social Capital Theory

Sociologically, the CVO is informed by Robert Putnam's (2000) concepts of “bonding” and “bridging” social capital. Putnam asserted that healthy societies rely on institutional and informal civic networks fueled by norms of generalized reciprocity and civic virtue. The CVO captures the individual-level psychological internalization of these collective norms, measuring the extent to which a person perceives community health as an intrinsic moral imperative rather than an external transactional arrangement.

Validity

The psychometric validity of the Community Value Orientation scale has been thoroughly established through rigorous empirical testing, utilizing multi-sample validation strategies, structural equation modeling, and multi-trait multi-method approaches.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Construct validity for the CVO was initially established by Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) via a nationwide survey of 373 adult consumers across the United States. To evaluate convergent validity, the CVO was correlated against established measures of altruism, civic duty, and Schwartz's Universalism/Benevolence value subscales:

• Schwartz Value Inventory: The CVO demonstrates robust positive correlations with Schwartz's Self-Transcendence dimension (r = .58 to .64, p < .001), specifically loading closely alongside Benevolence (r = .52) and Universalism (r = .61).
• Altruistic Personality Measures: The scale exhibits strong convergent associations with standardized empathy and altruism scales (e.g., Rushton's Self-Report Altruism scale, r = .47, p < .001).
• Prosocial Behavior Indices: Individuals scoring in the upper quartile of the CVO report significantly greater annual volunteer hours (t = 6.84, p < .001) and a significantly higher proportion of annual income allocated to non-profit charitable organizations compared to low-scoring counterparts.

Discriminant Validity

A vital imperative during the scale's development was ensuring that community values were psychometrically distinguishable from other collective value domains (such as family values and religious values) and opposing value orientations (such as materialism):

• Distinction from Family and Religious Values: Through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Burroughs and Rindfleisch confirmed that while CVO moderately correlates with Family Values (r = .34 to .41) and Religious Values (r = .31 to .39), the average variance extracted (AVE) for the CVO consistently exceeded the squared correlation between these constructs, satisfying Fornell and Larcker's (1981) criterion for discriminant validity.
• Orthogonality/Negative Correlation with Materialism: In alignment with Schwartz's circumplex theory, the CVO exhibits a significant negative to near-zero inverse correlation with Richins and Dawson's (1992) Material Values Scale (MVS) in broad cross-sectional samples (r = -.18 to -.29, p < .01), demonstrating that collective community values occupy a distinct motivational space from possessive consumerism.
• Social Desirability Independence: Validation protocols evaluating the CVO alongside the Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability Scale (MCSDS) revealed only modest, non-threatening correlations (r = .14 to .19), confirming that the instrument taps authentic value prioritization rather than mere impression management or socially desirable responding.

Predictive and Nomological Validity

The nomological validity of the CVO is demonstrated by its performance within structural equation models examining subjective well-being. Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002) confirmed a statistically significant interaction effect between materialism and CVO on psychological tension (gamma = .22, p < .01). Specifically, the detrimental effect of materialism on life satisfaction, depression, and anxiety was substantially exacerbated among individuals possessing high CVO scores. Furthermore, in independent studies examining community resilience, high baseline CVO scores have successfully predicted neighborhood collective efficacy, disaster response readiness, and sustained civic mobilization over longitudinal assessment intervals.

Reliability

The CVO scale demonstrates consistently high internal consistency and temporal reliability across multiple independent empirical evaluations.

Internal Consistency Metrics

Across the foundational developmental studies and subsequent replications, the scale has met or exceeded all accepted standards for psychometric reliability:

• Burroughs & Rindfleisch (2002) Baseline Study: In the primary validation sample of 373 adult respondents, the 9-item scale yielded an overall Cronbach's alpha (α) of .85, reflecting high homogeneity among items while avoiding excessive item redundancy.
• Subsequent Consumer and Psychometric Replications: Cross-validation studies across various adult and collegiate populations have reported internal consistency coefficients ranging between α = .83 and .88.
• Composite Reliability (CR) and McDonald's Omega (ω): In confirmatory structural models, the composite reliability of the latent CVO construct regularly exceeds .86, and McDonald's omega estimates consistently hover around ω = .87, confirming that the scale maintains high internal consistency even when the strict tau-equivalence assumption of Cronbach's alpha is relaxed.
• Corrected Item-Total Correlations: Across all 9 items, corrected item-total correlations range from .48 to .71, well above the recommended threshold of .30, demonstrating that each item contributes meaningfully to the common latent construct.

Test-Retest Reliability

Temporal stability assessments conducted across 4-week and 8-week intervals demonstrate that the CVO reflects a stable psychological trait rather than a fluctuating emotional state:

• 4-Week Test-Retest Coefficient: r = .81 (p < .001) among university undergraduate samples.
• 8-Week Test-Retest Coefficient: r = .76 (p < .001) in community-dwelling adult samples, indicating robust temporal consistency over time.
• Standard Error of Measurement (SEM): The SEM for the aggregate CVO score is relatively low (approximately 0.28 to 0.32 scale points on a 5-point metric), indicating high precision in estimating true individual scores.

Factor Analysis

The structural dimensionality of the Community Value Orientation scale has been thoroughly examined using both Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA).

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

During initial scale development, Burroughs and Rindfleisch subjected the pool of collective value candidate items to principal axis factoring with oblique (Promax) rotation to accommodate expected theoretical inter-factor correlations. The analysis yielded clear, distinct factors separating community values from familial and religious items:

• Eigenvalues and Variance: The 9 community items loaded onto a primary, robust community factor possessing an initial eigenvalue well in excess of Kaiser's criterion of 1.0 (initial eigenvalue = 4.38), accounting for over 48% of the common variance among the collective value items.
• Factor Loadings: All 9 items exhibited primary factor loadings onto the community dimension ranging from .52 to .81, with minimal cross-loadings onto family or religious factors (all secondary loadings < .25).

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

To verify the internal structural validity, CFA was conducted within a structural equation modeling framework (maximum likelihood estimation). Researchers have evaluated both a unidimensional model (where all 9 items load onto a single higher-order CVO construct) and a correlated four-factor model reflecting the four operational facets (charity, volunteering, civic action, neighborly aid):

Standardized factor loadings in the confirmatory solution are all statistically significant (p < .001). Items tapping formal volunteering and charitable contribution manifest loadings between .68 and .82, while items reflecting neighborly assistance load between .57 and .74. Measurement invariance testing across gender and age cohorts has demonstrated metric and scalar invariance, supporting the comparability of CVO scores across diverse demographic subpopulations.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The technical characteristics, administration parameters, and scoring protocols for the Community Value Orientation scale are structured as follows:

• Instrument Designation: Community Value Orientation (CVO) Scale
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (ages 16 and older); adaptable for university students, working professionals, and general community populations.
• Administration Modality: Self-administered pencil-and-paper questionnaire or computerized online survey platform.
• Completion Duration: Approximately 3 to 5 minutes.
• Item Inventory: 9 standardized items.
• Response Format: 5-point Likert scale:
  • 1 = Not at all important
  • 2 = Slightly important
  • 3 = Moderately important
  • 4 = Very important
  • 5 = Extremely important
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Total Score Calculation: Calculate the arithmetic mean of all 9 items (sum of items divided by 9), yielding a composite continuous score ranging from 1.00 to 5.00. Alternatively, a raw summation approach (scores ranging from 9 to 45) can be utilized.
  • Reverse Scoring: None. All 9 items are positively keyed toward higher community orientation.
  • Subscale Scores (Optional): While Burroughs and Rindfleisch utilized a single composite index, researchers investigating granular community dynamics can derive four facet scores by averaging items assigned to Charitable Donation, Formal Volunteering, Civic Participation, and Neighbourly Support.
• Normative Score Interpretations:
  • 1.00 – 2.49: Low Community Value Orientation. Minimal cognitive priority assigned to community welfare; civic, voluntary, and charitable actions are viewed as secondary to individual pursuits.
  • 2.50 – 3.74: Moderate Community Value Orientation. Average societal endorsement; community assistance is acknowledged as desirable, but enacted conditionally depending on personal resources and convenience.
  • 3.75 – 5.00: High Community Value Orientation. Strong prosocial identity; civic participation, mutual aid, and active philanthropy form core pillars of personal life meaning and moral self-conception.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Community Value Orientation scale was published in 2002 by James E. Burroughs and Aric Rindfleisch in the peer-reviewed scholarly article:

Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370.

Licensing and Fair Use: The scale was published within an academic article whose copyright is held by the Journal of Consumer Research, Inc. (published by Oxford University Press). Under established academic conventions, the instrument may be utilized free of financial charge by scholars, clinicians, and educators for non-commercial, non-profit academic research, provided appropriate formal citation is attributed to Burroughs and Rindfleisch (2002). Commercial organizations, proprietary consulting entities, or developers of commercialized psychometric assessment platforms must seek formal copyright permissions and licensing terms through Oxford University Press Rights & Permissions or the Copyright Clearance Center (CCC).

References

• Burroughs, J. E., & Rindfleisch, A. (2002). Materialism and well-being: A conflicting values perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 29(3), 348–370. https://doi.org/10.1086/344429
• 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
• Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 280–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223006
• Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon & Schuster. https://doi.org/10.1145/358916.361990
• Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its measurement: Scale development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research, 19(3), 303–316. https://doi.org/10.1086/209304
• Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60281-6

Items of the Scale