The Inventory of Values<\/strong>, developed by Albert H. Ewell, Jr.<\/a> in 1954 at New York University, is a pioneering psychometric instrument designed to assess the rigidity, content, and structure of individual moral value judgments. Created within the context of clinical psychopathology and social psychological measurement, the scale evaluates how individuals evaluate a wide range of social, interpersonal, financial, sexual, familial, and civic behaviors. The complete instrument comprises 108 self-report items depicting specific human actions\u2014ranging from petty dishonesties, civil disobedience, and financial maneuvering to taboo sexual expressions, parental authority, and religious observances. Participants evaluate each behavioral item using a five-point Likert-type<\/a> continuum: Always Right<\/em>, Generally Right<\/em>, Neither Right nor Wrong<\/em>, Generally Wrong<\/em>, and Always Wrong<\/em>.<\/p>\n Psychometrically, the instrument was engineered not merely to capture conventional moral conservatism versus permissiveness, but specifically to quantify moral absolutism or evaluative rigidity versus moral relativism and flexibility. Evaluative rigidity is traditionally indexed by the tendency to assign extreme categorical ratings (Always Right<\/em> or Always Wrong<\/em>) rather than nuanced or situational appraisals (Generally Right<\/em>, Generally Wrong<\/em>, or Neither Right nor Wrong<\/em>). In empirical clinical trials and non-clinical baseline evaluations, the scale demonstrated substantial split-half and internal consistency reliabilities across its primary normative dimensions, with composite reliability coefficients consistently exceeding .80. Later anthologized in the benchmark compendia compiled by John P. Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver<\/a> (1969, 1973) through the Institute for Social Research at the University of Michigan, the Inventory of Values remains a landmark methodological contribution to the empirical study of moral psychology<\/a>, clinical rigidity, ego defense mechanisms, and authoritarian social attitudes.<\/p>\n Inventory of Values, Albert H. Ewell, moral rigidity, value systems, moral psychology, psychometrics, moral absolutism, clinical psychopathology, social psychological attitudes, ethical decision-making<\/p>\n The Inventory of Values was originated and empirically validated by Albert H. Ewell, Jr., Ph.D.<\/strong>, conducting doctoral research within the Department of Psychology at the Graduate School of Arts and Science, New York University<\/a> (New York, NY, United States). Ewell’s foundational work investigated the intersections of psychodynamic defense mechanisms, psychopathology, religious orthodoxy, and cognitive rigidity among post-World War II military veterans.<\/p>\n The instrument was subsequently preserved, reviewed, and disseminated to the broader behavioral sciences community through the psychometric cataloging efforts of John P. Robinson, Ph.D.<\/strong> and Phillip R. Shaver, Ph.D.<\/strong>, operating out of the Survey Research Center at the Institute for Social Research<\/a>, University of Michigan (Ann Arbor, MI, United States). Institutional inquiries regarding historical archival records may be directed toward the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research or New York University Library Archives.<\/p>\n The primary purpose of the Inventory of Values is to systematically assess the structural rigidity, normative direction, and thematic composition of an individual’s moral evaluations. Developed in the post-World War II era\u2014a period marked by intense clinical interest in the cognitive and emotional sequelae of authoritarianism, religious dogmatism, and military trauma\u2014the inventory was formulated to test a central clinical hypothesis: that pathological rigidity in moral judgment directly corresponds to the severity and chronicity of functional psychological disorders. Rather than viewing moral values merely as benign sociocultural preferences, Ewell postulated that an individual’s evaluative stance toward human behavior reflects fundamental ego defenses<\/a>, superego severity, and cognitive adaptability.<\/p>\n Clinically, the inventory was designed to distinguish between adaptive, context-sensitive moral appraisal and rigid, punitive moral absolutism. In clinical populations\u2014particularly veterans diagnosed with functional neuroses, conversion reactions, or severe affective disturbances\u2014pathological moral rigidity manifests as an inability to integrate ambiguity, human fallibility, or contextual mitigation into ethical judgments. By having respondents appraise 108 concrete, ecologically valid behavioral vignettes, clinicians and researchers can calculate both a substantive moral stance score (reflecting endorsement, tolerance, or condemnation of specific conduct) and a structural moral rigidity score (reflecting the reliance on absolute moral categories).<\/p>\n In social and personality psychology research, the Inventory of Values serves multiple empirical functions:<\/p>\n The psychological construct underlying the Inventory of Values is multidimensional, integrating cognitive-structural elements of ethical reasoning with affective-normative value orientations. At its core, the instrument operationalizes moral value rigidity<\/strong>\u2014defined as the degree to which an individual applies uncompromising, categorical, black-and-white standards to human behaviors, irrespective of context, intent, or situational complexity. This construct is juxtaposed against moral flexibility<\/strong>, which entails relativistic, conditional, and context-dependent appraisals.<\/p>\n Although administered as a unified 108-item protocol, the behavioral scenarios systematically sample several latent behavioral and ethical domains:<\/p>\n This dimension examines an individual’s adherence to formal societal laws, civic duties, and legal authority versus personal opportunism or civil protest. Behaviors encompass petty crime and legal evasion (e.g., using slugs in pin-ball machines, passing counterfeit money, getting a parking ticket fixed, running red lights), institutional dissent (e.g., criticizing how the government is run, participating in wildcat strikes, conscientious objection), and corporate integrity (e.g., taking advantage of contract mistakes, padding expense accounts, hiding car defects before sale). Individuals high in moral absolutism typically perceive any infraction of civic rules as unconditionally corrupt, whereas flexible individuals modulate condemnation based on perceived harm or institutional injustice.<\/p>\n This construct captures moral obligations toward primary groups, peers, and vulnerable persons. It assesses willingness to assume personal responsibility or self-sacrifice (e.g., taking the blame for a co-worker’s or buddy’s mistake, defending a Negro, defending a Jew, returning a lost wallet) versus predatory interpersonal exploitation (e.g., cashing in on family reputation, trying to take another man’s partner, abandoning others in a burning building). This domain contrasts loyalty-based ethical systems with individualized, self-serving motives.<\/p>\n A substantial cluster of items measures affective tolerance versus punitive moral condemnation regarding human sexuality, bodily exposure, and traditional gender expectations. Behaviors include premarital and extramarital intercourse, non-traditional sexual positions, masturbation, contraceptive use, open displays of affection, viewing erotic literature, and nudity. Concurrently, gender role transgressions (e.g., a boy acting as a sissy, a girl being a tomboy, a man working as an interior decorator, letting a wife control family finances) capture the degree to which patriarchal and rigid gender constructions are moralized.<\/p>\n This dimension measures attitudes toward parental authority, physical punishment, domestic privacy, and filial piety. Scenarios touch upon physical discipline (e.g., whipping children), sex education within the home, intergenerational cohabitation (e.g., having parents live with the family), and sibling boundary management (e.g., opposite-sex siblings sharing a bedroom or bath). High scores in this domain reflect rigid, hierarchical, and authoritarian domestic values, whereas lower scores indicate progressive, democratic child-rearing philosophies.<\/p>\n The scale incorporates behavioral norms that govern public decorum and manners (e.g., eating with one’s fingers, belching openly, urinating outside, using profanity, crashing uninvited parties). The inclusion of these items enables the measurement of over-moralization<\/em>\u2014the psychological tendency to elevate minor etiquette violations to the status of grievous ethical transgressions.<\/p>\n The conceptual architecture of the Inventory of Values is anchored in mid-twentieth-century psychodynamic psychopathology, cognitive personality theory, and empirical sociology. The primary theoretical foundation is rooted in psychoanalytic ego psychology<\/a>, specifically the formulations of Anna Freud<\/a> and Heinz Hartmann<\/a> concerning ego defense mechanisms, superego introjection, and psychological adaptation.<\/p>\n Under classical psychodynamic theory, the superego functions as the internalized moral arbiter of the personality, derived from parental introjects and cultural sanctions. In healthy personality development, the mature ego modifies archaic superego demands, allowing for realistic, nuanced, and compassionate moral functioning. Conversely, in neurotic and functionally disordered personalities, the superego retains an infantile, severe, and vindictive character. Individuals struggling with intense intrapsychic conflict\u2014particularly repressed aggressive or libidinal impulses\u2014frequently rely on the defense mechanisms of reaction formation<\/a>, projection, and isolation of affect. In Ewell’s formulation, moral rigidity serves as an externalized defensive bulwark: by rigidly condemning any deviation from moral perfection in others, the patient represses and defends against their own unacceptable internal drives.<\/p>\n Concurrently, the scale draws deeply upon the theoretical construct of the Authoritarian Personality<\/strong> articulated by Theodor W. Adorno<\/a>, Else Frenkel-Brunswik, Daniel Levinson, and Nevitt Sanford (1950). Central to the authoritarian syndrome is intolerance of ambiguity<\/a>, cognitive rigidity, conventionalism, and authoritarian aggression. Frenkel-Brunswik’s work demonstrated that individuals characterized by high perceptual and emotional rigidity manifest an inability to tolerate mixed affective cues, requiring clear-cut categorizations of good versus evil, strong versus weak, and pure versus contaminated. The 108 items of the Inventory of Values operationalize this intolerance of ambiguity across concrete behavioral manifestations, demonstrating how cognitive-structural rigidity translates directly into moral absolutism.<\/p>\n Finally, the scale reflects early antecedents to the cognitive-developmental moral frameworks later formalized by Lawrence Kohlberg<\/a>. In Kohlbergian terminology, the rigid reliance on fixed social codes and literal rule-following aligns closely with Stage 4 (“Law and Order” \/ conventional) moral reasoning, whereas the capacity to recognize exceptions, contextual nuances, and universal human dignity (e.g., defending marginalized groups, conscientious objection) anticipates post-conventional principled morality.<\/p>\n Empirical validation of the Inventory of Values has focused predominantly on criterion-related validity, construct validity, and convergent validity across clinical and non-clinical populations.<\/p>\n In Ewell’s (1954) foundational validation study involving war veterans belonging to a homogenous religious denomination, the primary criterion measure was the clinical severity of functional psychological illness. Severity was established through independent psychiatric diagnostic ratings, clinical case histories, and standardized MMPI (Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory<\/a>) profiles. Veterans suffering from severe functional neuroses and incapacitating psychological maladjustment exhibited statistically significant elevations in moral rigidity scores compared to well-adjusted veterans from the identical religious cohort. Specifically, clinical patients exhibited a marked propensity to endorse extreme scale anchors (Always Wrong<\/em> and Always Right<\/em>) across diverse neutral and ambiguous behavioral scenarios, validating the hypothesis that structural moral rigidity indexes clinical maladjustment.<\/p>\n Construct validity was demonstrated by examining the relationship between moral rigidity and general intelligence. Ewell found that moral rigidity scores were not merely artifacts of cognitive ability or IQ, maintaining significant correlations with psychopathology even after partialling out educational attainment. Discriminant validity was further substantiated by comparing the scale’s structural rigidity index against simple directional morality. While clinical patients and non-clinical controls occasionally shared similar mean directional attitudes toward overt criminal offenses (e.g., both groups condemned bribing a police officer or passing counterfeit money), the clinical cohort uniquely extended this absolute condemnation to benign, non-harmful social transgressions, demonstrating over-generalization of superego strictness.<\/p>\n In later correlational investigations reviewed by Robinson and Shaver (1969), the Inventory of Values demonstrated robust convergent correlations with established measures of authoritarianism, dogmatism, and religiosity:<\/p>\n The psychometric reliability of the Inventory of Values has been demonstrated through multiple classical test theory methodologies across both its total score and structural sub-indices.<\/p>\n Given the 108-item length of the protocol, initial reliability analyses conducted by Ewell (1954) utilized split-half reliability techniques corrected by the Spearman-Brown prophecy formula<\/a>. For the overall moral rigidity metric (calculated by summing extreme category responses), split-half coefficients ranged between .86 and .91 across clinical veteran samples and matched non-clinical comparison groups. In subsequent re-evaluations and item analyses summarized in measurement handbooks, modern internal consistency evaluations (Cronbach’s alpha<\/a>) for the full 108-item directional scale have yielded estimates typically exceeding .90, reflecting high item homogeneity in measuring general social-moral conservatism versus permissiveness.<\/p>\n Temporal stability evaluations conducted across intervals ranging from two to six weeks have demonstrated test-retest correlation coefficients (r<\/em>) between .78 and .85 for the structural rigidity index, and between .82 and .88 for directional domain scores. These findings demonstrate that an individual’s structural tendency toward moral absolutism is a relatively enduring cognitive-personality trait rather than a transient, state-dependent mood artifact.<\/p>\n While the original 1954 investigation utilized classical item-total correlations and rational cluster scoring, subsequent quantitative re-analyses of the 108 items in social attitude research have clarified the underlying dimensional architecture of the instrument through exploratory (EFA<\/a>) and confirmatory (CFA<\/a>) factor analytic procedures.<\/p>\n Principal Axis Factoring (PAF) with varimax and promax rotations typically identifies four to six robust latent factors accounting for the majority of the common variance:<\/p>\n When factor analysis is conducted not on raw directional responses, but on the folded or absolute deviation scores (|Response − Neutral|), a dominant general factor of Moral Absolutism<\/em> emerges. This higher-order factor captures an individual’s overarching epistemic stance toward ethical questions, demonstrating that moral rigidity operates as a broad cognitive style cutting across varied thematic behavioral contents.<\/p>\n The Inventory of Values is a comprehensive, pen-and-paper or digital self-report psychological inventory. Its administrative specifications and scoring methodologies are detailed below:<\/p>\n The Inventory of Values was formally developed and published in 1954<\/strong> as part of Albert H. Ewell, Jr.’s doctoral dissertation at New York University. In 1969, the full instrument, along with its administrative scoring guidelines and psychometric properties, was published and cataloged in the public academic compendium Measures of Political Attitudes<\/em> (and subsequently in Measures of Social Psychological Attitudes<\/em>) by John P. Robinson and Phillip R. Shaver through the Institute for Social Research<\/a> at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.<\/p>\n As a historic psychometric instrument developed through academic dissertation research and widely anthologized in public research compendia sponsored by university research institutes, the scale is generally accessible for non-commercial scholarly research, educational instruction, and academic replication studies. No commercial licensing fees are mandated for educational or non-profit psychological research. Researchers utilizing the scale are expected to provide formal academic attribution to Ewell (1954) and Robinson and Shaver (1969). Researchers seeking commercial adaptation or extensive digital republishing should consult the University of Michigan Institute for Social Research.<\/p>\nKeywords<\/h2>\n
Authors<\/h2>\n
Purpose<\/h2>\n
\n
Psychological Construct<\/h2>\n
1. Civic, Legal, and Institutional Compliance<\/h3>\n
2. Interpersonal Altruism, Loyalty, and Solidarity<\/h3>\n
3. Psychosexual Normativity, Body Taboos, and Gender Role Adherence<\/h3>\n
4. Familial Governance, Child Rearing, and Domestic Authority<\/h3>\n
5. Conventional Etiquette and Social Propriety<\/h3>\n
Theoretical Framework<\/h2>\n
Validity<\/h2>\n
Criterion-Related and Predictive Validity<\/h3>\n
Construct and Discriminant Validity<\/h3>\n
Convergent Validity<\/h3>\n
\n
Reliability<\/h2>\n
Internal Consistency and Split-Half Reliability<\/h3>\n
Test-Retest Stability<\/h3>\n
Factor Analysis<\/h2>\n
Exploratory Factor Solutions<\/h3>\n
\n
Structural Indices: The Second-Order Rigidity Factor<\/h3>\n
Instrument \/ Measurement Tool<\/h2>\n
\n
\n
\n
Permissions & Fee and Test Year<\/h2>\n
References<\/h2>\n
\n
13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)<\/h2>\n