See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/222789764

The Study of Values: Construction of the fourth edition

Article  in  Journal of Vocational Behavior · April 2003

DOI: 10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00047-7

CITATIONS READS

55 23,930

3 authors, including:

Richard E. Kopelman Janet Rovenpor

City University of New York - Bernard M. Baruch College Manhattan College
185 PUBLICATIONS   3,678 CITATIONS    29 PUBLICATIONS   466 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Organizational Control System Responsiveness View project

Investigation View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Richard E. Kopelman on 18 January 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220
www.elsevier.com/locate/jvb

The Study of Values: Construction of the

fourth edition
Richard E. Kopelman,a,* Janet L. Rovenpor,b
and Mingwei Guanc
a
Zicklin School of Business, Baruch College, 17 Lexington Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA
b
Management Department, Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY 10471
c
Prudential Insurance Company, 751 Broad St., Newark, NJ 07102

Abstract

Some forty years after its initial publication, the Allport–Vernon–Lindzey Study of Values
(SOV) was the third most cited non-projective measure of personality in the field of psychol-
ogy. However, by the early 1980s the measure had fallen into disuse, in large part—we ar-
gue—due to its increasingly archaic content, lack of religious inclusiveness, and dated
language. We describe the development of an updated version of the SOV that incorporates
modifications to 15 out of the 45 original items. One hundred and seventy-nine students com-
pleted both the original and updated versions (counter-balanced for order). Psychometric
properties of the updated and original scales were comparable and acceptable. Rationales
for use of the updated version in research and practice are advanced.
Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Values; Personality; Self-assessment

1. Introduction

For decades after its initial publication (Vernon & Allport, 1931), the Allport–
Vernon–Lindzey Study of Values (SOV) had a substantial impact on psychological
research and practice. In terms of the metric of citation count, by 1970 the SOV
was the third most popular non-projective personality measure (after the MMPI
and the EPPS); overall, it was the fifth most cited personality measure, after the

*
Corresponding author. Fax: +646-312-3621.
E-mail address: richard_kopelman@bauch.cuny.edu (R.E. Kopelman).

0001-8791/03/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/S0001-8791(02)00047-7
204 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

Rorschach and the TAT (Buros, 1970, 1972). Citations of the SOV averaged over 80
per year. However, during the mid-1970s the SOV dropped to sixth place and the
annual average citation rate dropped to 27 (Buros, 1978). In 17th place by the early
1980Õs, the average annual citation rate declined to one (Buros, 1985). By 1989, the
SOV was no longer listed in the Mental Measurements Yearbook—having fallen
into psychological oblivion (Buros, 1989).
Based on SprangerÕs (1928) view that the essence of a person is best captured by
understanding the individualÕs value-philosophy, the SOV yields ipsative measures
of values grounded in SprangerÕs six ideal types: theoretical, economic, political, aes-
thetic, social, and religious. According to Allport (1961, p. 454): ‘‘We know a person
best if we know what kind of a future he [or she] is bringing about—and his [/her]
molding of the future rests primarily on his [/her] personal values.’’ Operationally,
these six values are ascertained by a forced choice among pairs and quartets of choices
cast in specific, behavioral scenarios, e.g., If you were a university professor and had
the necessary ability, would you prefer to teach (a) poetry; (b) chemistry and physics?
The scenarios are grounded in (and the instrument is predictive of) what Bruner
(1983, p. 280) called ‘‘the things that really matter in human existence: the job you
choose, the way you spend your free time, the friends you make, the stuff you read.’’
Accordingly, for forty years after its initial development, the SOV was widely used
for counseling, pedagogical, and research purposes. That the SOV provided valuable
insights for the purpose of counseling, was noted by Hogan (1972, p. 356): ‘‘When
used with cooperative subjects, it provides dependable and pertinent information
concerning individual cases.’’ Because the instrument can be completed and self-
scored in about 30 min, the SOV was often used in psychology courses as a class-
room demonstration. According to Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey (1970), students
are usually interested in their own scores, enjoy a discussion of the results, and feel
that the classification scheme is useful. Pertinent to the scaleÕs value in research,
Feldman and Newcomb (1969, p. 373) remarked that ‘‘this instrument provides
the best single source of information about value changes during the college years.’’
Moreover, over the years abundant evidence has accumulated demonstrating that
SOV scores are predictive of type of professional education, occupational choice, va-
lue changes, group differences (e.g., gender), interest measures, and value agreements
among family and friends (Allport et al., 1970).
So why did the instrument fall into disuse and shortly thereafter go out of print?
We believe that a key factor was that the items—developed in 1931 and only revised
once, in 1951—gradually became archaic in content and wording. Evidence of this is
suggested in HoganÕs (1972) review where he noted that ‘‘students seem annoyed oc-
casionally by the content and format of the items’’ (p. 355). Over the period 1975–
1995, the first author witnessed this first-hand: students increasingly complained that
the SOV was ‘‘quaint,’’ ‘‘outdated,’’ ‘‘sexist,’’ ‘‘biased.’’ Relatedly, William Naumes,
an experienced educator, recently noted that when he attempted to use the SOV in
the 1990s, some of his female students ‘‘were ready to lynch me’’ (William Naumes,
personal communication, June 1, 2001). To be sure, the ‘‘shelf-life’’ of a personality
test, absent modification, is unlikely to reach 40 years (cf., Chan, Drasgow, & Sawin,
1999; further, Chan et al. noted that ‘‘semantically rich’’ items are the least endur-
 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 205

ing). It should be noted here that the 1960 revision of the SOV only changed the
Users Manual; the 1970 revision primarily changed the scoring sheet.
In our view, the SOV needed updating in three main regards: (1) to replace dated
pronouns; (2) to broaden the examples of religiosity; and (3) to incorporate current
cultural referents and mores. What follows is a brief illustration of each category of
change; specific changes are reported in detail in the Method section of this paper.
The use of a generic ‘‘man’’ is no longer accepted, so we substituted person, individ-
ual, his/her, and so forth. The item that describes entering a cathedral was expanded to
include synagogue and mosque. Several items referred to historical figures almost all
being Caucasian males (and some, such as Amundsen and Byrd, are rather obscure to-
day). The only woman referenced was Florence Nightingale, who—all too stereotyp-
ically—was included as representative of the social (altruism) value. We added
General Colin Powell, Ayn Rand, Amelia Earhart, Indira Gandhi, and Marie Curie
in place of Napoleon, Aristotle, Byrd, Alexander, and Galileo, respectively.
Another probable reason for the declining use of the study of values was the emer-
gence of other value measures, in particular RokeachÕs (1983) Value Survey com-
prised of 18 instrumental and 18 terminal values, and SchwartzÕs (1992, 1994)
52-item rating scale. Although these two instruments are popular today, concerns
have been expressed about their psychometric adequacy. We discuss these concerns
more fully toward the end of this article. Some brief observations are offered here.
The Rokeach instrument requires the rank ordering of two sets of 18 relatively ab-
stract values, such as equality, freedom, loyalty, and courage. Similarly, the Sch-
wartz instrument requires the rating of 52 broad values, e.g., wisdom, inner
harmony, unity with nature, and social justice. Yet, there is evidence that what is val-
ued in abstract terms may be differently valued using a realistic behavioral scenario
(Peng, Nisbett, & Wong, 1997). Indeed, rankings have been shown to change de-
pending on the individualÕs mindset (personal life vs. societal perspective), and loca-
tion, e.g., at work vs. at home (Brown & Crace, 1996). Consequently, Connor and
Becker (1994) have issued a plea for the development of an instrument that incorpo-
rates realistic behavioral-choice situations. Likewise, Peng et al. concluded (p. 341):
‘‘. . .the low criterion validity of commonly used value survey methods might be
avoided by using the behavioral scenario method.’’ Ironically, such a measurement
method has long existed in the venerable SOV. The present research describes our
efforts to ‘‘spruce up’’ the SOV for the 21st century.

2. Method

2.1. Procedure

Both the original SOV as most recently revised in 1951 (SOV-O) and the updated
SOV developed in 1995 (SOV-U) were completed by all participants at two points in
time. The inter-measurement interval was approximately two months. Roughly one-
half of the participants completed the SOV-O first and the SOV-U second—Order 1;
for the other respondents the order was switched (Order 2). All questionnaires were
206 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

completed voluntarily and anonymously, the two versions being matched by a partic-
ipant-selected four-digit (or letter) ID code. All questionnaires asked for the respon-
dentÕs sex. Because some participants also completed additional survey instruments
administered for pedagogical purposes, it was possible to obtain demographic data,
in addition to sex, for approximately two-thirds of the total sample.

2.2. Participants

Participants were 121 graduate students and 58 undergraduate students enrolled in

business-related programs in a large metropolis. Ninety-one individuals completed the
two versions of the SOV with Order 1; 88 followed Order 2. (It should be noted, how-
ever, that participants were not randomly assigned to the two Orders; consequently,
Order 1 was comprised of 80 graduate students and 11 undergraduates, whereas Order
2 consisted of 41 graduate students and 47 undergraduates.) Based on the demo-
graphic data provided, 54% of respondents were male; 73% were currently employed,
or had been employed within the prior 12 months; mean salary was $48,022.

2.3. Measures

Although the SOV consists of 45 items, it yields 120 scores, 20 per value domain.
The first 30 items are couplets (Part One: 60 scores), and the final 15 items are quar-
tets (Part Two: 60 scores). In total, 15 of the original 45 items were modified—7 from
couplets and 8 from quartets. Because a change in one part of a couplet question
produces an identical complementary change in scores on the other part, these
changes yielded 7 independent comparisons. In contrast, with a change in a quartet
question, all four scores provide independent comparisons. Thus, comparisons were
examined for 43 separate scores.
The revised questionnaire appears in Appendix A. It should be noted that permis-
sion to use this copyrighted instrument must be obtained in writing. (If the instru-
ment is to be used for research purposes, resulting data must be sent to the first
author so that psychometric properties may be further ascertained.)
As indicated above, changes in items were of three types: gender-inclusive word-
ing, expanded religious inclusiveness, and updated cultural conventions. Three items
were modified solely by changes in wording. In the stem of item 3 the word ‘‘men’’
was changed to ‘‘individuals,’’ and ‘‘mankind’’ was changed to ‘‘human race.’’ Sim-
ilarly, the word ‘‘mankind’’ in item 6 was changed to ‘‘human race’’; in item 37
‘‘man’’ was changed to ‘‘you.’’ (Item 37 appears as Part Two item 7—for conve-
nience we denote Part Two items as items 31–45.)
Additionally, gender-inclusive wording changes were also made in conjunction
with more substantive modifications. Specifically, these include replacing ‘‘men’’
with ‘‘individuals’’ in the stem of item 21; ‘‘man’’ in the stem of item 32 was changed
to ‘‘person,’’ and response (b) was changed from ‘‘himself’’ to ‘‘himself/herself.’’ For
item 36, response (a) was changed from ‘‘men’’ to ‘‘individuals’’; response (c) of item
37 was changed from ‘‘clergyman’’ to ‘‘member of the clergy’’; and response (a) of
item 41 was changed from ‘‘man’’ to ‘‘human beings.’’
 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 207

Five items were changed by expanding their religious inclusiveness. In the stem of
item 2 ‘‘Bible’’ was changed to ‘‘Bible or Koran’’ and in the stem of item 11 ‘‘Prot-
estant leaders’’ was changed to ‘‘leaders of different religions.’’ In the stem of item 13
‘‘cathedral’’ was expanded to ‘‘cathedral, synagogue, or mosque.’’ The term
‘‘churches’’ in the stem of item 17 was modified to ‘‘religious institutions,’’ and re-
sponse (c) of item 37 was changed from ‘‘clergyman’’ to ‘‘member of the clergy
(priest/minister/rabbi, etc.)’’
Eight items were modified to reflect current cultural referents and mores. In item 21
response (a) was changed from ‘‘ Alexander, Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne’’ to
‘‘Indira Gandhi, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill’’; response (b) was
changed from ‘‘Aristotle, Socrates, and Kant’’ to ‘‘Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre,
and Immanuel Kant.’’ The response alternative (b) in item 32 was changed from ‘‘golf
and racing’’ to ‘‘competitive sports.’’ The stem of the original item 34 asked ‘‘Do you
prefer a friend (of your own sex) who—;’’ we changed this to ‘‘Do you prefer to de-
velop friendships with people who—.’’ Similarly, the stem of item 39 that originally
read ‘‘At an evening discussion with intimate friends of your own sex’’ was changed
to ‘‘At an evening discussion with close friends.’’ Response alternative (d) in item 39
was changed from ‘‘socialism and social amelioration’’ to ‘‘poverty and social amelio-
ration.’’ For item 36, response (a) was changed from ‘‘ballet or similar imaginative
performances’’ to ‘‘ballets, operas, or similar artistic performances’’; response (d)
was changed from ‘‘problem plays that argue consistently for one point of view’’ to
‘‘dramas that highlight the dilemmas and paradoxes of life.’’ The explorers whose ex-
ploits were referenced in the stem of item 41 were changed from ‘‘ColumbusÕs, Magel-
lanÕs, ByrdÕs, and AmundsenÕs’’ to ‘‘ColumbusÕs, MagellanÕs, and EarhartÕs.’’ Along
these lines, the four famous people who comprised response alternatives (a)–(d) of
item 43 were changed from ‘‘Florence Nightingale, Napoleon, Henry Ford, and
Galileo’’ to ‘‘Mother Theresa, General Colin Powell, Bill Gates, and Marie Curie.’’
Finally, the original question 44 was in two parts, one for men, the other for women.
The stems were as follows: ‘‘In choosing a wife would you prefer a woman who—
(Women answer the alternative form below) ’’ and ‘‘(For women) Would you prefer
a husband who—.’’ The first response alternative also differed in the two forms in that
men were given response (a) ‘‘can achieve social prestige, commanding admiration
from others,’’ and for women response (a) was ‘‘is successful in his profession, com-
manding admiration from others.’’ We created a gender-neutral, single form of item
44 with a stem that read, ‘‘In choosing a spouse/life-time companion would you prefer
someone who—.’’ Likewise, response (a) was modified to ‘‘is successful in his/her pro-
fession, commanding admiration from others.’’ The remaining response choices for
item 44 were identical on both the SOV-O and the SOV-U.

2.4. Analyses

Mean scores on all modified items were compared using Bonferroni-corrected

(Silverstein, 1982) t tests. Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach a) were
computed for each value domain. Inter-form correlations were computed across do-
mains for the entire sample. Differences in mean value domain scores were assessed
208 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

in three ways: (1) by t tests; (2) by univariate ANOVAs for each value domain that
examined within-person differences for format (i.e., SOV-O vs. SOV-U), between-
person differences for order, and within-person differences for the interaction be-
tween format and order; and (3) by a MANOVA that examined the effects of format,
order and the format by order interaction on all the six value domains together.

3. Results

Mean scores for all six value domains were computed for both the SOV-O and the
SOV-U for the entire sample (Table 1). None of the 6 comparisons yielded a signif-
icant difference. (When means were analyzed separately for respondents in Orders 1
and 2, there were, likewise, no significant differences.)
To isolate the potential effects of order, format, and the interaction between for-
mat and order, a multivariate two-factor split-plot design with replication was per-
formed (SAS Institute, 1989, p. 846). On a univariate basis (for each value domain
separately) there were no significant differences for format, order, or the format
by order interaction using Type III sum of squares to estimate the error. On a mul-
tivariate basis, there were no significant within-person differences for format (SOV-O
vs. SOV-U), but small, significant between-group differences were found for order
(F ¼ 2.45; WilksÕ k ¼ .921, p ¼ .027) and for the order  format interaction
(F ¼ 2.69; WilksÕ k ¼ .914, p ¼ .016).
Pertinent to the construct validity of the SOV-U, internal consistency reliability
estimates (Cronbach a) were computed—see Table 2. Mean Cronbach as for the
SOV-O and SOV-U were .66 and .67, respectively.
Inter-form correlations were also calculated for all respondents over the two-
month inter-measurement interval. The inter-form correlation results are presented
in Table 3. The median correlation across the six value domains was r ¼ :74.
Item analyses revealed four significant, independent differences out of the 43 com-
parisons examined. Specifically, item 11 was significantly higher in the updated ver-
sion when the more inclusive ‘‘leaders of different religions’’ was substituted for
‘‘Protestant leaders’’ in response (a). The two means, respectively, were 1.13 and
.75 (t ¼ 3.64; p < :05 Bonferroni-corrected). With regard to couplet item 21, response
(a) was changed from ‘‘Alexander, Julius Caesar, and Charlemagne’’ to ‘‘Indira
Gandhi, Theodore Roosevelt, and Winston Churchill’’; response (b) was changed

Table 1
Mean dimension scores on the SOV-O vs. the SOV-U for the entire sample
SOV-O SOV-U t p

M SD M SD
Theoretical 39.93 6.92 39.41 6.80 .71 ns
Economic 47.51 7.14 48.18 8.03 .83 ns
Social 39.25 7.07 38.91 7.24 .45 ns
Political 40.89 7.00 41.18 6.46 .41 ns
Aesthetic 36.04 7.71 35.49 7.83 .67 ns
Religious 36.39 8.99 37.08 9.60 .70 ns
 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 209

Table 2
Internal consistency reliability estimates (Cronbach a)
SOV-O SOV-U
Theoretical 0.60 0.59
Economic 0.64 0.72
Social 0.65 0.66
Political 0.61 0.55
Aesthetic 0.68 0.68
Religious 0.78 0.80

Table 3
Inter-form correlations over the two-month measurement interval: Entire sample
Correlation between: r
SOV-O theoretical and SOV-U theoretical .74
SOV-O economic and SOV-U economic .74
SOV-O social and SOV-U social .72
SOV-O political and SOV-U political .76
SOV-O aesthetic and SOV-U aesthetic .74
SOV-O religious and SOV-U religious .83

from ‘‘Aristotle, Socrates and Kant’’ to ‘‘Ayn Rand, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Immaneul
Kant.’’ As a consequence, mean scores for response (a) rose from 1.45 to 2.04
(t ¼ 6.63; p < :001), and, of course, mean scores for the (b) response fell from 1.55
to .96 (t ¼ 6.63; p < :001). Finally, question 43 asked the extent to which ‘‘the follow-
ing famous persons interest you.’’ The original list consisted of ‘‘Florence Nightingale,
Napoleon, Henry Ford, and Galileo’’; the revised quartet was ‘‘Mother Theresa, Gen-
eral Colin Powell, Bill Gates, and Marie Curie.’’ The result was a significant increase
in the economic value as manifested by Bill Gates in comparison to Henry Ford (3.04
vs. 2.59; t ¼ 4.59; p < :001), and a significant decline in the theoretical value when
Marie Curie was substituted for Galileo (2.11 vs. 2.65; t ¼ 5.44; p < :001).

4. Discussion and conclusion

To summarize, mean scores across the six dimensions were not significantly differ-
ent between the SOV-O and the SOV-U versions for the sample as a whole. ANO-
VAs for each value domain revealed no significant effects for format, order or the
format by order interaction. A small, but significant, order effect and order by for-
mat interaction was found using MANOVA. This finding most likely reflects differ-
ences in the sample composition of Orders 1 and 2; 88% of the former were graduate
students (half attending a private business school), whereas only 47% of the latter
were graduate students (all attending a public business school).
Reliability coefficients across value domains of the SOV-O and the SOV-U were
similar: .66 (SOV-O) and .67 (SOV-U). (a levels were also similar across domains, for
Order 1 and Order 2.) Inter-form correlations for the six value domains yielded a
median coefficient of r ¼ .74.
210 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

Four out of 43 score comparisons yielded statistically significant differences. Re-

ligious inclusiveness raised one score, and the substitution of modern famous people
modified one couplet and two items of one quartet. In retrospect, it is not surprising
that Bill Gates was relatively more attractive than Henry Ford, given the nature of
the sample population: students in business programs. Because the present data were
collected before the recent Department of Justice lawsuit against Microsoft, it is pos-
sible that this particular difference may attenuate.
All in all, it seems reasonable to conclude that the updated version of the Study of
Values possesses essentially equivalent substantive and psychometric properties in
comparison to the original version. Most important from our perspective is that re-
searchers and practitioners be informed about the existence of an updated version of
the SOV. As suggested in our introduction, there are serious problems with the two
most prominent measures of values. For example, Peng et al. (1997) compared three
methods of value assessment: Rokeach rankings, Schwartz ratings, and a behavioral
scenario method that they (Peng, et al.) originated. The rankings correlated only
modestly with themselves (across samples) and showed little or no correlations with
ratings. Further, they found neither the ratings nor rankings related to an external
criterion. In contrast, behavioral scenarios showed high external validity. Hence,
they called for the use of behavioral scenarios to assess values.
Connor and Becker (1994) noted in their review of research on personal values: ‘‘So
we agree with RokeachÕs (1985) wonderful observation, ÔLife is ipsativeÕ . . .Still, rank-
ing 18 values is not exactly choice behavior of an either-or variety. It is obvious to us
that there is a strong need for instruments that place respondents in realistic behavior-
al-choice situations, situations in which the choice is clearly values driven’’ (p. 71).
Similarly, Gibbins and WalkerÕs (1994), first sentence of their abstract reads: ‘‘It is
suggested that the popularity of the Rokeach Value Survey is undeserved and that the
apparent independence of each value being measured is a consequence of the fact that
the survey measures each value quite badly’’ (p. 797). And, as alluded to previously,
Peng et al. (1997) reported that criterion-related validity coefficients for both Schwartz
value ratings (.45) and Rokeach value rankings (.39) were both lower than a chance le-
vel of agreement (.50). In light of these concerns, we believe that an updated version of
the SOV should be re-considered by researchers, counselors, and educators when at-
tempting to assess personal values. Clearly the original SOV (as most recently revised
in 1951) cannot conceivably have a ‘‘shelf-life’’ of 50 years. But with our minor ‘‘twea-
kings,’’ a realistic, scenario-based behavioral choice instrument is available again.
There is also a theoretical argument to be made in favor of the SOV approach to-
ward assessing values. Because values are believed to be less than totally conscious,
somewhat below the level of complete awareness (cf. Meglino & Ravlin, 1998), accu-
rate value assessments may not be accessible directly. Rather, the valid discernment of
personal values may require the indirect assessments such as made in choice situations
(e.g., Locke, 1991; Williams, 1968, 1979). Indeed, Allport (1960) noted that after an
individual completes the SOV, a pattern resulting from conscious choices emerges to
form a profile of values; yet the individual is often not consciously aware of this pat-
tern beforehand. Somewhat analogously, McClelland (1985) lamented that the
Achievement motive was increasingly being measured by directly assessed ‘‘need’’
 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 211

to achieve scales, measures that were consciously mediated. In his view, motive
strength was not accurately accessible via direct questioning. Future research might,
for the first time, simultaneously compare the psychometric adequacy and predictive
validity of: Rokeach rankings, Schwartz ratings, and the updated version of the SOV.
If the timeless counsel of ‘‘know thyself’’ is to be heeded, it would be interesting to see
how the three approaches compare. Finally, it is notable that the first author no long-
er gets complaints that ‘‘this test is sexist’’ when the SOV-U is used to demonstrate
how an individualÕs values shape his or her interpretation of a case study.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Mary Yntema for her memo and Allen Kraut, Karen Lyness,
Gerald Olivero, and Donald Vredenburgh for their helpful comments on an earlier
draft. We are grateful to Edward Wolf, Norman Johnson, and David Prottas for their
help with statistical analyses. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 12th
Annual Conference of the American Psychological Society (Miami Beach), June 2000.

Appendix A

Ó 2002 Richard E. Kopelman, DBA, Janet L. Rovenpor, Ph.D., and Robert B.

Allport, MD. For use only with written permission of Dr. Richard E. Kopelman.

A.1. Part I

D I R E C T I O N S : A number of controversial statements or questions with two alterna-

tive answers are given below. Indicate your personal preferences by writing appropri-
ate figures in the boxes to the right of each question. Some of the alternatives may
appear equally attractive or unattractive to you. Nevertheless, please attempt to
choose the alternative that is relatively more acceptable to you. For each question
you have three points that you may distribute in any of the following combinations.
212 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

Do not write any combination of numbers except one of these four. There is no
time limit, but do not linger over any one question or statement, and do not leave out
any of the questions unless you find it really impossible to make a decision.
R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 213
214 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220
R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 215
216 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

A.2. Part II

D I R E C T I O N S : Each of the following situations or questions is followed by four

possible attitudes or answers. Arrange these answers in the order of your personal
preference by writing, in the appropriate box at the right, a score of 4, 3, 2, or 1.
To the statement you prefer most give 4, to the statement that is second most attrac-
tive 3, and so on.
Example: If this were a question and the following statements were alternative
choices you would place:

You may think of answers which would be preferable from your point of view to
any of those listed. It is necessary, however, that you make your selection from the
alternatives presented, and arrange all four in order of their desirability, guessing
when your preferences are not distinct. If you find it really impossible to state your
preference, you may omit the question. Be sure not to assign more than one 4, one 3,
etc., for each question.
R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 217
218 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220
 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220 219

References

Allport, G. W. (1960). Personality and social encounter. Boston: Beacon Press.

Allport, G. W. (1961). Pattern and growth in personality. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Allport, G. W., Vernon, P., & Lindzey, (1970). Study of values (Revised third ed). Chicago: The Riverside
Publishing Company.
Brown, D., & Crace, R. K. (1996). Values in life role choices and outcomes. The Career Development
Quarterly, 44, 211–223.
Bruner, J. (1983). In search of mind. New York: Harper & Row.
Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1970). Personality tests and reviews. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1972). The seventh mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon
Press.
 220 R.E. Kopelman et al. / Journal of Vocational Behavior 62 (2003) 203–220

Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1978). The eighth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1985). The ninth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon
Press.
Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1989). The tenth mental measurements yearbook. Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Chan, K.-Y., Drasgow, F., & Sawin, L. L. (1999). What is the shelf life of a test? The effect of time on the
psychometrics of a cognitive ability test battery. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 610–619.
Connor, P. E., & Becker, B. W. (1994). Personal values and management: What do we know and why we
donÕt we know more? Journal of Management Inquiry, 3, 67–73.
Feldman, K. A., & Newcomb, T. M. (1969). The impact of colleges on students: Vol. 1, An analysis of four
decades of research. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gibbins, K., & Walker, I. (1994). Multiple interpretations of the Rokeach value survey. The Journal of
Social Psychology, 133, 797–805.
Hogan, R. (1972). Review of the study of values. In O. K. Buros (Ed.), The seventh mental measurements
yearbook (pp. 355–356). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Locke, E. A. (1991). The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core.
Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 16, 405–414.
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40, 812–825.
Meglino, B. M., & Ravlin, E. C. (1998). Individual values in organizations: Concepts, controversies, and
research. Journal of Management, 24, 351–389.
Peng, K., Nisbett, R. E., & Wong, N. Y. C. (1997). Validity problems comparing values across cultures
and possible solutions. Psychological Methods, 2, 329–344.
Rokeach, M. (1983). Rokeach value survey. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Rokeach, M. (1985). Inducing changes and stability in belief systems and personality structures. Journal of
Social Issues, 41, 153–171.
SAS Institute, 1989. SAS/STAT UserÕs Guide Version 6, fourth ed., Vol. 2, Cary, NC: SAS Institute.
Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal
of Social Issues, 50, 19–45.
Silverstein, A. B. (1982). Pattern analysis as simultaneous statistical inference. Journal of Consulting and
Clinical Psychology, 50, 234–240.
Spranger, E. (1928). Types of men. New York: Stechert-Hafner.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1968). The concept of values. In D. Sills (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social
sciences (pp. 283–287). New York: Macmillan.
Williams, R. M., Jr. (1979). Change and stability in values and value systems: A sociological perspective.
In M. Rokeach (Ed.), Understanding human values (pp. 15–46). New York: Free Press.
Vernon, P. E., & Allport, G. W. (1931). A test for personal values. The Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 26, 231–248.

View publication stats