When researchers ask people what they value, they get answers. When they ask people why they made a particular decision, they get different answers. When they observe what people actually prioritise over years and across contexts, they get a third set of answers. The gap between these is one of the central puzzles in the psychology of values, and Shalom Schwartz spent a career building a framework rigorous enough to make sense of it.
Schwartz's theory of basic human values identifies ten distinct values that appear across cultures, languages, and historical periods — self-direction, stimulation, hedonism, achievement, power, security, conformity, tradition, benevolence, and universalism. Together they form a structured system, not a list, in which related values cluster together and conflicting values sit opposite each other on a circle. This structural property is what makes the framework genuinely useful for understanding why people want what they want and why their decisions sometimes feel internally contradictory.
Key Takeaways
- Schwartz's framework identifies ten basic values that appear cross-culturally, validated across more than 80 countries (Schwartz, 1992; 2012).
- The ten values cluster into four higher-order categories: openness to change, self-enhancement, conservation, and self-transcendence.
- The values are arranged in a circle. Values close together on the circle tend to coexist; values opposite each other on the circle tend to conflict.
- A person's values profile — which values they hold strongly, which weakly, which they treat as load-bearing — predicts a great deal about what kinds of life feel meaningful to them.
- Most people hold conflicting values at non-trivial intensities. The internal tension this produces is structural, not a sign of confusion.
- The framework is descriptive, not prescriptive. No values are inherently better than others. What predicts wellbeing is fit between values and life, not the values themselves.
Why does Schwartz's framework matter more than the average values list?
Most popular values frameworks are essentially lists. They give you a long set of words — integrity, courage, family, growth, freedom, etc. — and ask which ones resonate. The result is usually a list of warm-sounding values most people would endorse, with little explanatory or predictive power.
Schwartz's framework is structurally different in two ways. First, it was developed empirically across decades of cross-cultural research, with the ten values being the categories that actually emerged from what people across very different cultures consistently reported caring about. They are not assertions about what people should value — they are descriptions of what people demonstrably do value.
Second, the framework specifies the relationships between the values. The ten values are arranged in a circle that captures which ones are compatible (close together) and which ones conflict (opposite each other). This map of compatibility and conflict is what makes the framework predictive rather than just descriptive. It explains why certain combinations of values produce internal ease and others produce chronic decision difficulty. It explains why some life paths feel coherent for a person and others feel internally contradictory.
Bardi and Schwartz (2003) showed that values reliably predict behaviour patterns when the values–behaviour relationship is examined within the structural framework. People high on self-direction values consistently behave in self-directing ways. People high on conformity values consistently behave in conforming ways. The behavioural prediction works because the values are real motivational orientations, not just rhetorical preferences.
What are the ten values, in plain English?
Each of the ten values describes a motivational orientation — a category of what the person treats as worthwhile, what they orient toward, what tends to produce a positive felt response when they get to act on it.
Self-direction is the value of independent thought and action. People high on self-direction want to choose their own path, make their own decisions, set their own goals. They tend to chafe against environments that require them to defer to authority or follow predetermined paths.
Stimulation is the value of novelty, challenge, and excitement. People high on stimulation want their lives to feel varied, new, and energising. Routine and predictability cost them disproportionately.
Hedonism is the value of pleasure and sensory gratification. People high on hedonism are oriented toward enjoyment as a legitimate goal in itself, not as a side effect of other pursuits.
Achievement is the value of personal success through competence. People high on achievement are oriented toward demonstrating ability, accomplishing things by their own efforts, and earning recognition for it.
Power is the value of social status, prestige, and control over resources. People high on power are oriented toward influence — having a meaningful impact on outcomes, being someone whose decisions matter.
Security is the value of safety, harmony, and stability. People high on security want their lives to feel reliable, their environments to feel safe, their commitments to feel sturdy.
Conformity is the value of restraining actions that would upset or harm others or violate social norms. People high on conformity are oriented toward fitting in, meeting expectations, and avoiding causing disruption.
Tradition is the value of respect for and commitment to customs and ideas inherited from family, religion, or culture. People high on tradition are oriented toward continuity with the past and what it has handed down.
Benevolence is the value of preserving and enhancing the welfare of people in one's immediate group — family, friends, close colleagues. People high on benevolence orient strongly toward the people they consider their own.
Universalism is the value of understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection for the welfare of all people and for nature. People high on universalism orient toward fairness, social justice, and care that extends beyond their own circle.
These ten values are exhaustive in Schwartz's framework. Every more specific value most people might name (loyalty, ambition, creativity, curiosity, generosity, freedom, etc.) maps onto or is composed from these ten basic categories.
How do the ten values cluster into four bigger groups?
The ten basic values aggregate into four higher-order groups, each capturing a broader motivational direction. These groups are arranged along two axes that define the value space.
Openness to change combines self-direction, stimulation, and (partly) hedonism. People oriented toward openness to change are drawn to novelty, autonomy, and growth. They want their lives to expand and change rather than stabilise and continue.
Conservation combines security, conformity, and tradition. People oriented toward conservation are drawn to stability, predictability, and continuity. They want their lives to feel sturdy and connected to what came before.
These two — openness to change and conservation — sit opposite each other on the values circle. They are not enemies in any moral sense, but they are structurally in tension. A life can lean strongly in one direction or the other, but it is hard to fully maximise both simultaneously, because the structural choices that serve one tend to constrain the other.
Self-enhancement combines achievement, power, and (partly) hedonism. People oriented toward self-enhancement are drawn to personal advancement — accomplishment, status, the pursuit of one's own interests.
Self-transcendence combines benevolence and universalism. People oriented toward self-transcendence are drawn to caring for others — preservation and enhancement of the welfare of one's own people and of people more broadly.
Self-enhancement and self-transcendence also sit opposite each other on the circle. The person who orients strongly toward both will face genuine decision difficulty in any situation where personal advancement and care for others come into conflict.
This structure is what makes Schwartz's framework so useful for explaining the felt experience of values conflict. People often experience indecision in particular situations and assume the indecision is about that situation. Often it is structural — the person's values profile contains opposing orientations, and the situation has activated both. Recognising this changes the interpretation of the difficulty.
How do values conflict in practice?
The clearest examples of conflict in practice come from the situations where opposite-circle values get activated together.
A person who scores high on both achievement and benevolence will face recurring difficulty in situations where pursuing personal accomplishment requires deprioritising someone they care about. The doctor working long hours, the entrepreneur whose startup costs them family time, the academic whose career requires geographic moves the partner doesn't want — these are not character defects or weak commitment. They are values conflict made structural.
A person who scores high on both stimulation and security will struggle to settle into stable arrangements that work and also struggle to leave them in pursuit of novelty. The pattern of restlessness in stable contexts and craving stability in unstable ones is the felt experience of these two values pulling against each other.
A person who scores high on both conformity and self-direction will experience chronic friction between their pull toward fitting in and their pull toward defining their own path. They often look conformist on the outside and feel rebellious on the inside, or vice versa, with the disowned half producing dissatisfaction either way.
Recognising these structural conflicts doesn't resolve them. It does change what you make of the difficulty. The decision-making problem is not weakness or confusion. It is the predictable result of holding values that the framework specifies as structurally in tension. Once that's named, you can work with it rather than berate yourself for it.
This is closely connected to the experience of borrowed values versus chosen values — sometimes the conflict is between a value you actually hold and a value you were assigned, in which case the resolution lies in distinguishing the two. Other times the conflict is between two values you genuinely hold, in which case the resolution is about which one is load-bearing in this particular situation.
What does the framework predict about wellbeing?
Sagiv and Schwartz (2000) found that the relationship between values and wellbeing depends primarily on values–environment fit rather than on which values the person holds. A high score on self-direction does not predict happiness in itself. It predicts dissatisfaction in environments that constrain self-direction and satisfaction in environments that support it. The same logic applies across the ten values.
This is the empirical foundation for the experience explored in living out of alignment with your values — the felt wrongness of a life that doesn't express the values the person holds. The mechanism is a values–environment mismatch. The fix is changing the fit, by changing either the values' expression or the environment, depending on what's actually possible.
The wellbeing prediction is one of the most useful applications of the framework. It moves the question of what would help a particular person from "what should they value differently" (which is mostly unanswerable and often offensive) to "what would let them live more in line with what they already value" (which is concrete and actionable). The values, in this framing, are not the problem to be fixed. The fit is.
The framework does not tell you what to value. It gives you a vocabulary for what you already do, a map of how your values relate to each other, and an explanation for why some of your decisions feel structurally hard. That is more useful than any list.
Take the InnerPersona assessment — see where your scores sit across the ten Schwartz values, which clusters dominate your profile, and where the structural conflicts in your values are most likely to produce decision difficulty.
Read next: Living Out of Alignment With Your Values
Go deeper
Measure your own personality across 13 dimensions.
The InnerPersona assessment covers all 13 dimensions discussed in this article — free insights, no account required.
Frequently asked questions
Why does Schwartz's framework get cited so much when there are so many values frameworks out there?
Two reasons. The first is empirical depth — Schwartz's framework is one of the few that's been validated across more than 80 countries and dozens of languages, so the ten values appear to be genuinely cross-cultural rather than artefacts of a specific worldview. The second is structural — the framework doesn't just list values, it maps how they relate to each other, including which ones tend to conflict. Most other frameworks list values as if they were independent. Schwartz's framework treats them as a structured system, which is closer to how they actually operate.
What's the difference between values and traits?
Values are about what you treat as worthwhile. Traits are about how you tend to behave. They are correlated — high openness to experience predicts higher self-direction values, high conscientiousness predicts higher conformity values — but they are not the same thing. A person can hold a value strongly without consistently acting on it (this is the alignment problem) and can express a behaviour pattern that doesn't reflect their actual values (this is the conformity problem). Both questions are worth asking separately.
Are values fixed for life, or do they change?
They change, but slowly. Schwartz et al. (2017) tracked values longitudinally and found measurable shifts associated with major life transitions — early adulthood, parenthood, mid-career, loss. The general pattern is that conservation values (security, conformity, tradition) tend to increase with age while openness-to-change values (self-direction, stimulation) tend to decrease, though the trajectories vary considerably by individual. The values you formed at twenty are unlikely to be exactly the values that fit you at forty-five, which is part of why periodic re-mapping matters.
Can you hold values that conflict with each other?
Yes — and most people do. The Schwartz framework is built around this. The ten values are arranged in a circle, and values opposite each other on the circle (for example, achievement and benevolence, or stimulation and conformity) tend to conflict in real-life decisions. Holding both at high intensity is normal but produces internal tension that has to be resolved situation by situation. Recognising which of your values conflict is part of what makes the framework useful — it explains decision difficulty that otherwise feels like indecisiveness.
Is it bad to score high on values like power or achievement?
No. The framework is descriptive, not prescriptive. None of the ten values are pathological in themselves. What matters is the structure of the whole values profile and whether the person's life expresses their values. A person high on power and achievement who is in a role that lets them exercise both will tend to be more satisfied than a person with the same profile in a role that requires self-transcendence. The values themselves aren't the problem. Mismatch is.
How accurate is self-reporting your own values?
Imperfect, but useful. Schwartz's questionnaires were designed to surface behavioural values rather than aspirational ones — they ask about preferences and reactions in concrete scenarios rather than asking 'how important is X to you' directly, which would surface what people think they should value. Even so, there is a known gap between self-reported values and observed behaviour. The framework is most accurate when used as a starting point to be tested against actual reactions and patterns over time, not as a final verdict.
Why do some of these values overlap with personality traits like agreeableness?
Because values and traits are related dimensions that emerge from overlapping psychological structures. Benevolence and universalism share variance with agreeableness. Achievement and power share variance with extraversion and (negatively) with agreeableness. Self-direction shares variance with openness to experience. The frameworks were developed independently and use different theoretical lenses, but they end up describing related territory. Combining them — values plus traits — produces a more complete picture than either alone, which is part of why the [13 dimensions](/blog/13-dimensions-of-personality) framework treats them as separate inputs.
If I score high on conflicting values, how do I make decisions?
By recognising that the conflict is real and not a sign of confusion. People high on both achievement and benevolence will face genuine decision difficulty in situations where pursuing accomplishment requires deprioritising care for others. The framework doesn't resolve those decisions — it identifies them. The practical move is to notice which value tends to win in your actual behaviour over time. That pattern reveals which of your values is currently load-bearing in your life, which may or may not match which one you'd say is more important if asked directly.
