ALLPORT – VERNON – LENDZEY STUDY OF VALUES

Introduction to the Allport – Vernon – Lendzey Study of Values

The Allport – Vernon – Lendzey (AVL) Study of Values stands as a seminal instrument in personality assessment, specifically designed to empirically measure and uncover an individual’s dominant and pervasive interests, which are conceptualized as fundamental values. Developed by Gordon Allport, Philip Vernon, and Gardner Lindzey, this test provides a structured approach to quantifying the relative importance of six basic value orientations in the life of a subject. Unlike traditional personality inventories that focus on traits or emotional stability, the AVL focuses directly on motivations and philosophical outlooks, positing that an individual’s value system serves as the primary frame of reference through which experiences are organized and interpreted. The test is administered in the form of a detailed questionnaire, requiring subjects to make forced choices and rank preferences, thereby revealing a unique profile of their motivational hierarchy. Its enduring relevance stems from its robust theoretical foundation and its ability to differentiate between various professional and demographic groups based on intrinsic values.

Theoretical Foundation: Spranger’s Types of Men

The conceptual backbone of the AVL Study of Values is firmly rooted in the work of German philosopher and educator Edward Spranger, particularly his influential 1928 treatise, Types of Men: The Psychology and Ethics of Personality. Spranger theorized that personality could be best understood by analyzing the spheres of value in which individuals habitually organize their lives and direct their energy. He proposed that all human activity and motivation could be sorted into six distinct, ideal types, each representing a major cultural or philosophical orientation. Allport, Vernon, and Lindzey recognized the practical utility of Spranger’s framework for psychological measurement and adapted these philosophical categories into a standardized, quantifiable instrument. This adaptation transformed Spranger’s largely theoretical typology into an empirical tool, allowing researchers and practitioners to profile the motivational landscape of individuals with unprecedented clarity. The authors of the test, much like Spranger himself, were careful to emphasize that these six categories represent ideal types, acknowledging that few, if any, individuals fit completely into a single category; rather, most people possess a mixture, with one or two values achieving dominance and coloring their overall worldview.

The premise underlying this theoretical approach is that the dominant interest or value held by an individual acts as a lens through which they perceive, judge, and respond to the world around them. This dominant value shapes their goals, their choices of profession, and even their interpretation of complex experiences such as religion or art. For instance, if an individual exhibits a pronounced aesthetic interest, their interaction with the world may be guided primarily by considerations of form, symmetry, and harmony, potentially overriding practical or economic concerns. Conversely, an individual dominated by economic interests will prioritize utility and accumulation in nearly every aspect of life. Understanding this hierarchy of values, therefore, becomes one of the most effective ways to predict behavior and understand the structural organization of an individual’s personal reality.

The Six Basic Value Orientations

The AVL Study of Values measures the relative importance of six specific value categories derived directly from Spranger’s typology. These six orientations cover the major domains of human endeavor and provide a comprehensive framework for assessing motivational priorities. The results of the test yield a profile showing which of these values are most influential in the subject’s life.

The six basic values assessed by the AVL are:

• Theoretical: This value is defined by the passionate pursuit of truth and the systematic ordering of knowledge. Individuals scoring high in this area are characterized by their rational, critical, and empirical interests. They seek to discover, synthesize, and order facts, often focusing on the disinterested search for understanding rather than the practical application of their findings. The primary goal is comprehension and intellectual mastery.
• Economic: The economic orientation emphasizes the practical, the useful, and the accumulation of wealth and resources. This value is typically associated with the pragmatic concerns of business, production, marketing, and the efficient use of materials. Individuals dominated by this value view the world through a utilitarian lens, frequently judging events, people, and objects based on their inherent usefulness and potential for generating profit or productivity.
• Esthetic: The esthetic individual places paramount importance on form, harmony, symmetry, and grace. They value subjective enjoyment and appreciate each impression for its own sake, often seeking beauty and artistic expression in all facets of life. Their judgments are frequently based on appropriateness, fitness, and artistic merit, and they may interpret religious or social experiences through the filter of beauty rather than dogma or altruism.
• Social: Characterized by a profound love of people, the social value orientation views others as ends in themselves, rather than as means to an end. This orientation is marked by attributes such as kindness, sympathy, compassion, and unselfishness. The highest expression of this value is altruistic love, driven by a genuine concern for the welfare and well-being of others, often leading to engagement in helping professions or philanthropic endeavors.
• Political: This value is fundamentally concerned with personal power, influence, and renown. While often associated with political governance or diplomacy, this value manifests across all vocational areas where leadership, control, and the ability to exert influence over others are paramount. Individuals with a dominant political interest seek to achieve prestige, impact decisions, and command respect, prioritizing authority and status above other concerns.
• Religious: The religious value orientation is defined by a primary interest in comprehending the cosmos as a unified whole. These individuals seek a sense of unity, meaning, and coherence in all experience, often viewing the world through a spiritual or mystical lens. Their focus is on the ultimate reality and the relationship between the individual and the universe, striving for a unified perspective that transcends the immediate and the material.

It is crucial to understand that when one value dominates an individual’s psychological structure, it tends to color their outlook on all other things. For instance, while an aesthetic individual might be sensitive to the feelings of others, they are typically not as profoundly interested in the fundamental welfare of those people as someone with a dominant social interest. Their sensitivity might be rooted in an appreciation of the emotional landscape as a form of human art or expression, rather than a purely altruistic drive. This demonstrates how the “pure” value types act as essential frameworks, determining how experiences are selected, organized, and ultimately interpreted by the individual.

Design and Administration of the Test: Part I

The AVL Study of Values is meticulously structured to prevent subjects from guessing the intended categories, thereby ensuring the spontaneity and honesty of their responses. The test is divided into two distinct parts, both designed to evoke the six measured values in a random and disguised order. Part I of the test presents the subject with a series of thirty familiar ideas or statements, requiring a differential choice between two opposing options. This section employs a specific forced-choice mechanism where the subject is given three points to distribute between the two presented alternatives, offering flexibility in response while still demanding a preference ranking. The permissible divisions of points are 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, or 0-3. This allocation procedure is highly effective because it not only forces the subject to choose a preference but also provides a rough, quantitative estimate of the relative strength of that preference, distinguishing between a mild inclination (2-1) and a strong commitment (3-0).

A classic example utilized in Part I illustrates the contrast between the theoretical and economic values. A statement might read: “The main object of scientific research should be the discovery of pure truth rather than its practical application.” A subject who assigns 3 points to the first part of the statement (discovery of pure truth) scores strongly toward the theoretical interest, prioritizing knowledge for its own sake. Conversely, a subject who assigns 3 points to the latter part (practical application) scores strongly toward the economic interest, emphasizing utility and measurable outcomes. The construction of these questions ensures that each pair of choices contrasts two specific values, allowing for precise measurement of the subject’s motivational leanings across the six dimensions. The necessity of distributing points across thirty such items aggregates a comprehensive picture of the underlying value structure, minimizing the impact of momentary biases or situational factors.

Design and Administration of the Test: Part II

Part II of the AVL test introduces a more complex and detailed ranking system designed to provide finer differentiation among the six values. This section consists of fifteen questions, each containing a series of four alternatives. The subject is required to rank these alternatives in order of preference, from the most preferred (rank 1) to the least preferred (rank 4). This ranking process forces the individual to make subtle distinctions among competing motivations simultaneously, offering a deeper insight into the nuanced hierarchy of their values than the simpler forced-choice mechanism of Part I. The need to rank preferences, rather than simply choosing between two options, elevates the cognitive engagement required and increases the discriminatory power of the instrument.

A typical example from Part II might present a scenario related to governmental goals, requiring the subject to prioritize different societal aims. The question might ask: “Do you think a good government should aim chiefly at (a) more aid for the poor, sick and old? (b) the development of manufacturing and trade? (c) introducing more ethical principles into its policies and diplomacy? (d) establishing a position of prestige and respect among nations?” Analyzing these alternatives reveals that option (a) corresponds to the Social value, (b) to the Economic value, (c) potentially to the Religious or Theoretical (if ethical philosophy is emphasized), and (d) clearly to the Political value. By ranking these four statements, the subject must explicitly state which societal goal they deem most important and which they consider least important, providing a critical data point for the construction of their final value profile. The cumulative results from both Part I and Part II are mathematically manipulated to produce a normalized score for each of the six values, allowing the examiner to construct a visual profile of the subject’s motivational structure.

Interpretation, Norms, and Reliability

The AVL Study of Values is primarily intended for administration to college students or adults who possess a level of education equivalent to some college experience, ensuring the necessary linguistic comprehension and abstract reasoning skills required to navigate the complex questionnaire items. The administration time for the test is notably brief, typically requiring only about twenty minutes, making it highly efficient for large-scale testing environments. Following the administration, the examiner tabulates the results, which involves converting the raw scores into standardized values that illustrate the relative strength of the subject’s interests across the six defined areas. The final output is often presented as a profile chart, providing a clear visual representation of the individual’s value hierarchy.

For accurate interpretation, comprehensive norms have been established through extensive testing of various college populations. Crucially, the AVL utilizes separate norms for each sex, recognizing inherent differences in socialization and cultural expectations that influence value priorities. Furthermore, norms are often tailored to specific institutional contexts, as values may vary significantly between different colleges or universities. The psychometric properties of the AVL have been rigorously assessed, demonstrating high retest reliability, meaning that subjects generally produce consistent results when taking the test multiple times. Beyond consistency, the test has proven its validity by successfully differentiating between distinct professional or academic groups; for example, it has shown clear differences in value profiles between medical students and theological students, illustrating its utility in vocational guidance and selection.

Empirical Validation and Sex Differences

The core philosophical assertion of the AVL authors—that understanding an individual’s value system is paramount to understanding their behavior—has been substantially supported by subsequent empirical research. Numerous investigations have demonstrated the pervasive influence of dominant values on cognitive processing, perception, and memory. For instance, a classic study conducted by Postman, Bruner, and McGinnis in 1948 found compelling evidence that individuals recognize words pertaining to their dominant interest area more quickly than words belonging to other areas. This finding suggests that value systems act as perceptual filters, priming the individual to process and prioritize information that is consistent with their core motivations.

Further supporting the cognitive impact of values, Postman and Schneider (1951) demonstrated that ideas and information consistent with an individual’s established value system tend to be retained and organized in memory more effectively than ideas that conflict with or are tangential to those values. These studies strongly indicate that individuals actively construe their experience in terms of their value system, using it as a foundational structure for making sense of the world. In terms of demographic findings, the AVL has consistently revealed notable sex differences across various tested populations. Males generally score higher on the theoretical, economic, and political interests, suggesting a greater cultural emphasis on objective knowledge, material success, and personal power. Conversely, females typically score higher on esthetic, social, and religious values, reflecting a greater cultural emphasis on altruism, interpersonal relationships, harmony, and spiritual meaning. These robust and consistent differences undoubtedly reflect the profound influence of cultural factors and prescribed sex roles within American society at the time of the test’s development and subsequent use. (See also the entry on SEX DIFFERENCES for related discussion.)

Criticisms and Limitations of the Study

Despite its significant contribution to the field of personality assessment and value measurement, the AVL Study of Values has been subjected to several important criticisms, primarily concerning its acceptance of the underlying philosophical framework provided by Spranger. Critics argue that the test seemingly accepts the frequently incomplete and sometimes overly flattering personality portraits drawn by Spranger, potentially overlooking the less virtuous aspects of human motivation. For instance, the test’s portrayal of the “social man” as purely altruistic may fail to recognize that individuals driven by high social scores can also be selfish, manipulative, or unconsciously egocentric, using social engagement as a means of personal validation or control rather than pure unselfishness. The test’s definition of the social value may thus be too narrow and idealized.

A second major criticism addresses the range of motivations considered by the instrument. The AVL is often criticized for failing to recognize or measure motivations driven by purely sensual or bodily values, such as the pursuit of pleasure, comfort, or physical gratification. These sensual values, while potentially fitting under the broad umbrella of the aesthetic or economic spheres, are not explicitly addressed, leading to a potentially incomplete profile for individuals whose lives are dominated by hedonistic pursuits. Furthermore, the test, by focusing on the relative strength of six high-minded philosophical values, arguably fails to recognize the existence of individuals who are almost totally devoid of clearly defined values of any kind, or those who operate primarily out of apathy or anomie. However, notwithstanding these limitations related to its theoretical reliance on Spranger’s ideal types, the Allport – Vernon – Lendzey Study of Values remains highly regarded as an important, pioneering contribution to the systematic study of human values and an instrument that continues to be valuable in promoting self-understanding and guiding vocational choice.