The Mode Values Inventory<\/strong> (MVI), conceptualized and empirically validated by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law in 1985, stands as a foundational psychometric instrument engineered to measure individuals’ operationalized instrumental values\u2014defined as desirable modes of conduct that guide day-to-day behavioral choices, ethical self-regulation, and interpersonal interaction. Developed as an empirical critique and methodological advancement beyond the ranking system of the Rokeach Value Survey<\/a> (RVS), the MVI operationalizes 51 distinct value items using an asymmetric, non-ipsative 7-point acceptance-rejection rating scale ranging from 1 (“I reject this”) to 7 (“I accept this as of the greatest importance”). This design remedies the mathematical dependencies, ordinal constraints, and forced-choice artificialities inherent in ipsative ranking procedures.<\/p>\n Extensive factor-analytic evaluations demonstrate that the instrument captures both broad multidimensional constellations and specialized behavioral dispositions. Primary psychometric dimensions identified in initial standardization samples include A Positive Orientation to Others<\/em> (13 items, α = .89), Competence and Effectiveness<\/em> (13 items, α = .89), Propriety in Dress and Manners<\/em> (7 items, α = .83), Religious Commitment<\/em> (4 items, α = .68), Assertiveness<\/em> (3 items, α = .67), and Getting Ahead<\/em> (2 items, α = .59), alongside auxiliary behavioral facets capturing Withdrawal From Others<\/em>, Carefreeness<\/em>, Honesty<\/em>, and Thriftiness<\/em>. The inventory demonstrates robust construct validity, high test-retest stability, meaningful convergent validity with external personality inventories and social-attitudinal frameworks, and distinct discriminant separation from terminal goal constructs measured by companion scales such as the Goal Values Inventory (GVI). The MVI serves as a critical methodology for personality psychologists, organizational sociologists, cross-cultural researchers, and social psychologists seeking to quantify behavioral value orientations without sacrificing interval-level statistical properties<\/span>.<\/p>\n Mode Values Inventory, instrumental values, Valerie Braithwaite, Rokeach Value Survey, value systems, social psychology, psychometrics, human values, moral conduct, behavioral orientations, rating vs ranking, factor structure, scale validation, ethical principles, social attitudes<\/p>\n The Mode Values Inventory was designed, developed, and validated by Valerie A. Braithwaite<\/strong> and H. G. Law<\/strong>. At the time of the instrument’s initial validation and publication in 1985, Valerie A. Braithwaite was affiliated with the Social Science Data Archives and the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University<\/a> (ANU) in Canberra, Australia. Professor Braithwaite is an internationally recognized social psychologist whose scholarship centers on human values, trust, motivational postures, regulatory compliance, and institutional governance.<\/p>\n Her co-author, H. G. Law, was affiliated with the Department of Psychology at the University of Queensland<\/a> in St. Lucia, Brisbane, Australia. Dr. Law contributed extensive quantitative, multivariate psychometric expertise, focusing on structural equation modeling, multidimensional scaling, exploratory factor analysis, and measurement equivalence in survey research. Inquiries regarding archival documentation and psychometric parameters can be directed to academic institutional repositories at the Australian National University.<\/p>\n The primary rationale underlying the development of the Mode Values Inventory was to overcome the severe methodological and theoretical constraints characterizing twentieth-century human values assessment. Prior to Braithwaite and Law’s (1985) work, the dominant paradigm in values research was Milton Rokeach’s conceptualization, operationalized via the Rokeach Value Survey. Although Rokeach provided a transformative theoretical distinction between “terminal values” (desirable end-states of existence) and “instrumental values” (desirable modes of conduct), his assessment methodology imposed a strict ipsative ranking procedure. Participants were compelled to rank 18 terminal and 18 instrumental values in hierarchical order from 1 to 18.<\/p>\n This forced-ranking protocol generated severe statistical liabilities. Ranking procedures produce strictly ipsative data characterized by zero-sum dependency: assigning an elevated rank to one value automatically and artificially forces another value to receive a lower rank, irrespective of whether the individual truly values both ideals identically. Consequently, ipsative rankings distort standard correlation matrices, violate assumptions of normality and independence required for parametric multivariate analyses (such as factor analysis and structural equation modeling), and make interpersonal comparisons conceptually suspect.<\/p>\n The Mode Values Inventory was designed specifically to:<\/p>\n The psychological construct assessed by the Mode Values Inventory is the human instrumental value system<\/strong>, defined within the social psychology<\/a> tradition as an organized constellation of enduring beliefs regarding preferable modes of conduct. Unlike traits (which describe what people do habitually) or attitudes (which reflect favorable or unfavorable evaluations of specific social objects or situations), values represent abstract, trans-situational evaluative criteria that serve as moral, personal, and social standards for guiding action, judging self and others, and rationalizing attitudes.<\/p>\n Within the MVI, modes of conduct are organized into ten conceptual and empirical dimensions:<\/p>\n This primary factor reflects altruistic, communal, and prosocial modes of interacting with fellow human beings. It encompasses an interpersonal stance grounded in empathy, benevolence, tolerance, and relational solidarity. Sample operationalizations include being Helpful<\/em> (always ready to assist others), Tolerant<\/em> (accepting others even though they may be different from you), Forgiving<\/em> (willing to pardon others), Giving others a fair go<\/em> (giving others a chance), Tactful<\/em>, Considerate<\/em>, Cooperative<\/em>, Loving<\/em>, Trusting<\/em>, Grateful<\/em>, Understanding<\/em>, Friendly<\/em>, and Generous<\/em>. This dimension aligns closely with broad prosociality, benevolence, and communion constructs found across personality literature.<\/p>\n Reflecting personal agency, intellectual rigor, operational efficiency, and problem-solving capability, this dimension captures values necessary for mastering task environments and achieving pragmatic success. Operational markers include being Bright<\/em> (quick thinking), Adaptable<\/em> (adjusting to change easily), Competent<\/em> (being capable), Resourceful<\/em> (clever at finding ways to achieve a goal), Self-disciplined<\/em>, Efficient<\/em>, Realistic<\/em>, Knowledgeable<\/em>, Persevering<\/em>, Progressive<\/em>, Conscientious<\/em>, Logical<\/em>, and Showing foresight<\/em>. It serves as an instrumental precursor to occupational mastery, self-efficacy, and academic achievement.<\/p>\n This dimension taps into normative conformity, adherence to social etiquette, self-presentation, and civil orderliness. It reflects the conviction that personal presentation and behavioral restraint are essential modes of social integration. Items include Polite<\/em> (well mannered), Patriotic<\/em> (loyal to your country), Prompt<\/em> (on time), Refined<\/em> (never being coarse or vulgar), Clean<\/em> (not having dirty habits), Neat<\/em> (tidy), and Reliable<\/em> (dependable).<\/p>\n Focusing on spiritual adherence, transcendent devotion, and moral self-abnegation, this subscale measures the importance of living in alignment with sacred or ideological mandates. It is marked by Committed<\/em> (dedicated to cause), Devout<\/em> (following your religious faith conscientiously), Self-sacrificing<\/em> (putting the interest of others before own), and Idealistic<\/em> (living according to how things should be rather than how things are).<\/p>\n This facet assesses an individual’s readiness to defend personal sovereignty, assert ideological positions, and maintain decisiveness in the face of interpersonal or social opposition. Items include Standing up for your beliefs<\/em> (defending your beliefs no matter who opposes them), Having your say<\/em> (confidently stating your opinions), and Determined<\/em> (standing by your decisions firmly).<\/p>\n Capturing self-reliance, introversive autonomy, and psychological boundaries against social enmeshment, this facet includes Keeping to yourself<\/em> (being content with your own company) and Independent<\/em> (doing things on your own).<\/p>\n Representing behavioral spontaneity, low inhibition, and immediate responsiveness versus impulse restraint, this facet evaluates Acting on impulse<\/em> (doing things on the spur of the moment), Spontaneous<\/em> (doing what comes naturally), and Cautious<\/em> (reverse-scored or contrastive: not rushing into things).<\/p>\n Centering on relational transparency, integrity, and ethical authenticity, this facet comprises Open<\/em> (not hiding anything from anyone) and Honest<\/em> (never cheating or lying).<\/p>\n Reflecting economic prudence and opportunistic vigilance, this facet taps into financial self-restraint and resource conservation through Thrifty<\/em> (careful in spending money) and Never missing a chance<\/em> (taking advantage of every opportunity that comes your way).<\/p>\n Focusing on competitive striving, status ascension, and comparative excellence, this dimension measures an individual’s drive to outshine peers and succeed in social comparison, measured by Ambitious<\/em> (being eager to do well) and Competitive<\/em> (always trying to do better than others).<\/p>\n The Mode Values Inventory is deeply grounded in the structural traditions of value theory established by Milton Rokeach<\/a>, Clyde Kluckhohn, and later expanded by Norman Feather and Shalom Schwartz. In his seminal treatise, The Nature of Human Values<\/em> (1973), Rokeach defined a value as 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. Values occupy a central, superordinate position in human cognitive architecture, orchestrating broader attitudes, behavioral intentions, and specific actions.<\/p>\n Rokeach explicitly bifurcated the universe of human values into two fundamental categories:<\/p>\n Braithwaite and Law adopted Rokeach’s functional distinction but departed radically from his psychometric execution. They recognized that human value systems are not zero-sum economies. In human daily life, an individual does not necessarily downgrade “being loving” in order to uphold “being logical.” Instead, individuals possess cognitive architectures capable of holding polythetic, non-mutually-exclusive value networks. Braithwaite and Law theorized that human values are structurally organized into multi-tiered cognitive hierarchies characterized by underlying latent factors that can be modeled linearly.<\/p>\n Furthermore, Braithwaite and Law’s theoretical framework drew on the work of Norman Feather (1975), who demonstrated that values function as psychological motives and cognitive standards against which actions are evaluated. By expanding the instrumental value pool and establishing an asymmetric rating continuum, the MVI permits empirical investigation into how distinct mode value clusters (such as prosociality vs. competence vs. competitiveness) relate orthogonally or obliquely to external behavioral criteria, personal goal setting, and socio-political attitudes.<\/p>\n The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the Mode Values Inventory has been established through empirical investigations across community, student, and organizational samples.<\/p>\n In their initial validation study comprising large, representative Australian community samples (Braithwaite & Law, 1985), exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic models demonstrated that the 51 items clustered into psychometrically coherent, interpretable latent dimensions. The presence of distinct high-order factors\u2014specifically separating prosocial interpersonal orientations (A Positive Orientation to Others<\/em>) from personal efficacy (Competence and Effectiveness<\/em>) and normative compliance (Propriety<\/em>)\u2014confirmed that the MVI successfully maps distinct domains of human behavioral regulation rather than a single general social desirability artifact.<\/p>\n The MVI demonstrates robust convergent validity when correlated with established personality inventories, moral development assessments, and social attitude batteries. Scores on A Positive Orientation to Others<\/em> correlate substantially with the Agreeableness dimension of the Five-Factor Model<\/a> of personality (correlations typically ranging between r<\/em> = .50 and .65) and measures of empathy and prosocial behavior. The Competence and Effectiveness<\/em> subscale correlates positively with Conscientiousness, generalized self-efficacy scales, and achievement motivation measures (r<\/em> ≥ .45)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Crucially, Braithwaite and Law demonstrated that the MVI exhibits discriminant validity against terminal value inventories, such as the Goal Values Inventory (GVI). Factor analyses including both MVI (instrumental) and GVI (terminal) items revealed distinct factor loading patterns, empirically supporting the theoretical distinction between modes of conduct and end-states of existence. Additionally, correlations with Marlowe-Crowne Social Desirability scales confirmed that although value endorsement inherently carries a positive valence, the variance captured by the MVI scales reflects substantive individual differences rather than pervasive social desirability response distortion.<\/p>\n Subsequent empirical research has utilized the MVI to predict real-world behavioral outcomes and motivational orientations. For instance, in organizational and educational psychology research examining goal orientations (e.g., Gore, 2014), the Getting Ahead<\/em> and Competence and Effectiveness<\/em> dimensions demonstrated significant predictive utility in explaining variance in self-set goal levels, task persistence, and self-efficacy beliefs. Similarly, studies in sociopolitical psychology have demonstrated that subscales such as Propriety in Dress and Manners<\/em> and Religious Commitment<\/em> significantly predict institutional deference, political conservatism, and legal compliance attitudes, whereas A Positive Orientation to Others<\/em> predicts humanitarian policy preferences and voluntary civic engagement.<\/p>\n The Mode Values Inventory exhibits solid internal consistency reliability and temporal stability across diverse research settings.<\/p>\n In the primary psychometric validation conducted by Braithwaite and Law (1985), the major multi-item subscales demonstrated high-to-adequate Cronbach’s alpha internal consistency coefficients:<\/p>\n The shorter auxiliary scales consisting of two or three items (such as Withdrawal From Others<\/em>, Carefreeness<\/em>, Honesty<\/em>, and Thriftiness<\/em>) exhibit modest reliability coefficients (α = .50 to .65), a mathematical consequence of reduced item count. However, their inter-item correlations satisfy standard psychometric criteria for brief conceptual facets, maintaining mean inter-item correlation coefficients within the optimal .20 to .40 range recommended by Briggs and Cheek (1986)<\/span>.<\/p>\n Test-retest reliability assessments conducted across varying time intervals (ranging from four weeks to six months) have confirmed that values measured by the MVI demonstrate substantial longitudinal stability. Test-retest correlation coefficients across major dimensions routinely fall between r<\/em> = .70 and r<\/em> = .82, reflecting the theoretical premise that while values are responsive to major developmental and socio-historical transitions, they remain stable cognitive landmarks across adult life<\/span>.<\/p>\n The structural validation of the Mode Values Inventory represents one of its most pivotal contributions to psychometrics. Braithwaite and Law (1985) subjected the 51 instrumental value items to principal axis factor analysis and maximum likelihood factor extraction, accompanied by both orthogonal (Varimax) and oblique (Oblimin) rotations to evaluate the dimensionality of human modes of conduct.<\/p>\n The exploratory factor analytic (EFA) results revealed that the 51 items are structured hierarchically:<\/p>\n Subsequent structural modeling and confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) have indicated that the lower-order factors coalesce into two superordinate axes echoing universal cross-cultural value models (such as Schwartz’s circumplex): an Other-Directed \/ Prosocial<\/em> axis (contrasting social harmony and propriety with self-interest) and an Individual Agency \/ Mastery<\/em> axis (contrasting personal competence and competitive striving with conservative withdrawal). Fit indices across well-specified CFA models typically yield acceptable to good parameters (RMSEA ≤ .06, CFI ≥ .90, TLI ≥ .89), confirming that the MVI successfully captures an invariant structural taxonomy of instrumental human values<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Mode Values Inventory was published in 1985 in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology<\/em> by Valerie A. Braithwaite and H. G. Law. As an academic psychometric instrument developed through institutional research funded within the public university system, the scale items were published directly in the academic literature for scholarly use.<\/p>\n The instrument is freely accessible for non-commercial academic, clinical, and scientific research under standard fair-use scholarly conventions. Commercial utilization, proprietary software integration, or fee-based consulting deployments require formal permissions from the copyright holders and the American Psychological Association<\/a>. Researchers deploying the MVI in empirical studies should cite the seminal 1985 publication and provide appropriate attribution to the authors.<\/p>\n 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<\/em>, 49(1), 250\u2013263. https:\/\/doi.org\/10.1037\/0022-3514.49.1.250<\/a><\/p>\n2. Keywords<\/h2>\n
3. Authors<\/h2>\n
4. Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
5. Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
A Positive Orientation to Others<\/h3>\n
Competence and Effectiveness<\/h3>\n
Propriety in Dress and Manners<\/h3>\n
Religious Commitment<\/h3>\n
Assertiveness<\/h3>\n
Withdrawal From Others<\/h3>\n
Carefreeness<\/h3>\n
Honesty<\/h3>\n
Thriftiness<\/h3>\n
Getting Ahead<\/h3>\n
6. Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
\n
7. Validity<\/h2>\n
Construct and Structural Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Predictive and Criterion Validity<\/h3>\n
8. Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency<\/h3>\n
\n
Temporal Stability<\/h3>\n
9. Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Factor Extraction and Loadings<\/h3>\n
\n
Higher-Order and Confirmatory Models<\/h3>\n
10. Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
12. References<\/h2>\n