A 24-question values test over the four higher-order value orientations: openness to change, self-enhancement, conservation and self-transcendence. They sit in two opposing pairs by construction, so scoring high on one usually means scoring lower on its opposite — and the gap is what carries the information. Not a moral ranking. Scored in your browser.
Twenty-four statements, about three minutes. Answer for what actually guides you rather than what you think is admirable — these four orientations sit in two opposing pairs, so the socially preferred answer points in two directions at once and a flattering profile is an incoherent one. Scored entirely in your browser.
How to use this test
Answer for what guides you, not what you admire
Every one of these orientations is admirable from some angle. A profile built on what sounds best describes nobody, and because the pairs oppose each other it will not even be internally consistent.
Take the first reading
Twenty-four statements, roughly three minutes. Deliberating usually produces a justification rather than a recollection.
Read the gaps, not the top bar
The oppositions are the content: openness against conservation, self-enhancement against self-transcendence. How far apart each pair sits tells you more than which one leads.
Read the orientation at the BOTTOM too
What you deprioritise is as descriptive as what you prioritise, and usually less comfortable — which is generally a sign it is worth reading.
What this test measures
Ask what someone values and you will get a list of admirable things. The list is not useless, but it is not informative either, because almost nobody holds values that oppose each other in the abstract — the conflict only appears in decisions. Schwartz (1992) set out the structure this test is built on, and its central feature is exactly that: values are arranged in a circumplex, with four higher-order orientations sitting in two opposing pairs.
That means a values profile is not four independent scores. Scoring high on one orientation tends to mean scoring lower on the one opposite it, because they make competing demands on the same choices.
Openness to change ↔ Conservation
Openness covers self-direction and stimulation: deciding for yourself, and preferring the unsettled option. Conservation covers security, conformity and tradition: keeping commitments after they become expensive, and treating inherited practice as carrying information rather than merely inertia. Every time you take the unsettled option you spend stability; every time you protect an arrangement you forgo an alternative. Neither is the cautious answer or the brave one — they are two ways of pricing the same decision.
Self-enhancement ↔ Self-transcendence
Self-enhancement covers achievement and influence: doing visibly well, having a say, being recognised. Self-transcendence covers benevolence and universalism: the welfare of others, including people you will never meet. They compete over whose interest an outcome should serve.
This pair is where the framework is most often misused. Self-transcendence reads as the good answer and self-enhancement as the shameful one, and the research does not say that. A person who values achievement is not thereby selfish, and a person who values universal welfare is not thereby good. Nothing on this page will grade you, for a practical reason as well as an honest one: a test that punishes the truthful answer teaches people to answer untruthfully, after which it measures nothing at all.
Why four orientations and not ten values
The framework is usually presented as ten basic values, and that resolution is well supported by the research. It is not well supported by this instrument. Twenty-four items across ten scales would be two or three items each, and reporting ten separate numbers at that resolution would imply a precision the test does not have.
The four higher-order orientations are a validated level of the same model — not a simplification invented here — and they are the level 24 items can honestly carry. That is a deliberate trade of resolution for truthfulness, and it is recorded in this tool's provenance notes rather than left implicit.
How to read your result
Each orientation is scored from six statements on a five-point agreement scale, giving a range of 6 to 30. The useful reading is the gaps within each pair: how far openness sits from conservation, and self-enhancement from self-transcendence. A profile where both pairs are narrow describes someone who has not settled either question; one with two wide gaps describes someone with clear priorities and predictable trade-offs.
The orientation at the bottom is worth reading too. What you deprioritise is as descriptive as what you prioritise, and usually less comfortable.
Half the statements are reverse-worded, so agreeing with everything does not raise every score. If you agree — or disagree — with nearly all of them, the test says so, because with opposing pairs that pattern is especially uninformative.
What this test is not
It is not a measure of character, and it is not a moral assessment. It uses an original RECATOOLS item set written from the published construct definitions; it is not the Schwartz Value Survey or the PVQ, and makes no claim to their validation or norms.
No comparison by country is offered, and that is deliberate. The published work finds the value structure is close to universal while the priorities differ by culture — so a national comparison would require norms we do not have, and would be a claim this test is not entitled to make.
It also measures stated priorities rather than behaviour. The gap between what people say guides them and what guides them under pressure is well documented, and this test only sees the first.
Everything is scored in your browser. Your answers are held only on this device so you can resume if you stop partway, they are cleared when you finish, and they are never uploaded.
The four orientations
Openness to change
Self-direction and the pull of the new. Deciding for yourself matters more than getting it right first time. Costs continuity.
Self-enhancement
Achievement and influence — doing visibly well and being recognised for it. The orientation people most reliably under-report.
Conservation
Continuity, commitment and inherited practice. The most misread of the four: usually not timidity but a real estimate that the arrangement is load-bearing.
Self-transcendence
The welfare of people beyond yourself, including people you will never meet. Its costs are diffusion — and leaving exactly one person out of the calculation.
Frequently asked questions
-
About three minutes. There are 24 statements and you rate your agreement with each on a five-point scale.
-
Because 24 items cannot honestly support ten scales — that would be two or three items each, and reporting ten numbers at that resolution implies precision that is not there. The four higher-order orientations are a validated level of the same framework.
-
No. This is an original RECATOOLS item set written over the same published framework. The PVQ repository is licensed CC BY-NC-ND — non-commercial and no-derivatives — so it could not be used commercially or translated, and none of its item text was consulted.
-
None. This is the most common misuse of the framework. The four are competing claims on the same decisions, not a scale from worse to better — and in particular, self-transcendence is not the correct answer and self-enhancement is not a character flaw.
-
Because they are supposed to. Openness sits opposite conservation, and self-enhancement opposite self-transcendence. Scoring high on one usually means scoring lower on its opposite; that structure is the framework, not a flaw in your answers.
-
It is a genuine result and the test reports it rather than picking a winner. It usually means the statements did not pull you strongly in any direction.
-
Half the statements are reverse-worded, so agreeing with nearly all of them means agreeing with pairs that contradict each other. That pulls all four scores toward the middle and makes the profile much weaker evidence.
-
The research treats value priorities as relatively stable but not fixed. Major life changes move them, and so does age. A result from years ago may describe someone you no longer are.
-
No. Everything is scored in your browser. Answers are held on this device only so you can resume if you stop partway, and are cleared when you finish.
-
No, deliberately. The published work finds the value STRUCTURE is close to universal while the priorities differ by culture — so a country comparison would need norms we do not have, and would be the kind of claim this test is not entitled to make.
-
No. These are stated priorities. The gap between what people say guides them and what guides them under pressure is well documented, and this test measures the first.
Pick up where you left off
Stored only in this browser — never sent to our servers.