One of the foundational assumptions in value research — stated explicitly by Rokeach (1973) and implied in early formulations of Schwartz's own theory — is that values are relatively stable after early adulthood. The developmental hypothesis was that value formation occurs primarily in childhood and adolescence, with the resulting hierarchy remaining fairly stable through adult life.
The longitudinal research, when it finally became available, told a different story.
Multiple large-scale longitudinal studies following individuals across years and decades have now established that values do change across adulthood — not dramatically, not continuously, but in patterned ways that follow life stages, respond to major life events, and shift systematically with age. Understanding how and why values change is one of the more practically useful things the Schwartz research tradition has produced.
The stability question
Early estimates of value stability relied primarily on cross-sectional data — comparing different age groups at a single point in time. The problem with cross-sectional data is that it conflates age effects (how values change as people age) with cohort effects (how people born in different generations differ in their values). Finding that 70-year-olds prioritize Security more than 25-year-olds doesn't necessarily mean that those 25-year-olds will prioritize Security at 70 — they might maintain their priorities throughout life, or society might shift further in ways that affect everyone's priorities.
The longitudinal data resolves this. A PLOS One study using two German panel datasets spanning more than 25 years reached a clear conclusion: values of adults are not stable across the lifespan, contra the earlier theoretical assumptions. A New Zealand longitudinal study (Milfont et al. 2016) reported test-retest correlations for the four higher-order value dimensions ranging from .58 to .60 over three years — meaningful stability but with substantial room for change. An Italian longitudinal study (Vecchione et al. 2016) found an average correlation of .57 for the ten basic values over two years.
These correlations indicate moderate stability — the same person at different ages tends to have similar value priorities, more so than two random individuals. But moderate stability also means that meaningful change is real and common. The value profile you hold at 25 is a reasonable predictor of what you'll hold at 45, but with enough systematic drift that the prediction will be partly wrong.
Age-related trends
Across studies, certain patterns of age-related value change appear consistently:
Stimulation and Hedonism tend to decrease with age. The values oriented toward novelty, excitement, and pleasure as a motivating end tend to be highest in younger adults and decline across the lifespan. This pattern appears in cross-sectional and longitudinal data and has been interpreted as reflecting both biological changes in sensation-seeking and the shifted demands of adult life, which increasingly reward stability over novelty.
Security, Conformity, and Tradition tend to increase with age. The Conservation values — stability, order, established norms — tend to strengthen across the lifespan. Older adults, across many cultures, show higher Conservation value priorities than younger adults. The increase likely reflects both the greater stake that people develop in established arrangements over time and the increased salience of safety concerns that comes with age and greater vulnerability.
Benevolence tends to remain high or increase slightly. Care for close others is among the most consistently high-ranked values across age groups and tends to strengthen modestly with age, likely reflecting the deepening of long-term relationships and the increasing salience of family obligations.
Universalism shows a more complex pattern. Some studies find Universalism increasing in older adulthood, particularly the concern for social justice and environmental welfare. Others find it relatively stable. The pattern may vary by cohort and cultural context.
Achievement and Power tend to decline with age. The Self- Enhancement values — oriented toward success and dominance — tend to be higher in younger and middle-aged adults and to diminish in later life. This may reflect both the declining salience of competitive career arenas and the psychological shift that some research describes as a move toward greater other-orientation in later life.
The overall arc is toward greater Conservation and away from Stimulation and Self-Enhancement — a motivational structure that tends to become more organized around maintaining what exists and caring for close others as people age.
Life event effects
Beyond age-related trends, specific life events shift value priorities in ways that the longitudinal research has begun to characterize.
Parenthood systematically shifts values toward Conservation. A study by Lönnqvist et al. (2018), using both cross-sectional European Social Survey data and a longitudinal study following Finnish couples from the onset of pregnancy to three months after childbirth, found that becoming a mother shifted value priorities toward the Conservation pole of the Openness to Change vs. Conservation dimension. Mothers who had previously prioritized Self-Direction and Stimulation relatively highly showed shifts toward Security and Conformity following childbirth. The effect was documented in both cross-sectional comparisons (Finnish mothers vs. non-mothers) and the prospective longitudinal data.
The mechanism is interpretable: parenthood activates Security concerns (for the child's welfare, for the family's stability), shifts the salience of Conformity (established norms exist for child-rearing for good reasons), and reduces the immediate availability of Stimulation (the lifestyle of a new parent is substantially more constrained than the lifestyle before parenthood).
Going to college temporarily shifts values toward Openness to Change. Several studies find that the college transition produces a short-term shift toward Self-Direction and Stimulation — reflecting both the exposure to diverse ideas and lifestyles and the increased emphasis on autonomy that higher education environments encourage. The shift tends to be somewhat temporary, with values moving back toward prior levels after the transitional period.
Economic hardship shifts values toward Security and Conservation. A study of European adults during the 2008 financial crisis found that exposure to the economic disruption was associated with increased Security value priorities. When material stability is threatened, Security becomes more salient as a motivating concern. The effect is rational: the value's motivational function is most activated when what it describes is most at risk.
Exposure to war, displacement, and environmental catastrophe produces similar Conservation-ward shifts in the research literature, reflecting the same mechanism. When existing arrangements are disrupted or threatened, Conservation values that are organized around maintaining them become more motivationally prominent.
The COVID-19 pandemic produced documented value shifts in several studies. Initial pandemic conditions (high uncertainty, high threat) predicted increased Security value priorities. The longer-term effects varied by context.
Cohort vs. age effects: a caution
A methodological note worth understanding: much of the age-related evidence reviewed above comes from cross-sectional data, which cannot definitively separate age effects (how you change as you age) from cohort effects (how your generation differs from other generations due to shared historical experiences).
The generational literature (Inglehart's World Values Survey work is the most prominent example) suggests that post-material values — broadly corresponding to Openness to Change and Self-Transcendence — have increased across cohorts in economically developed countries as material security has improved. Each successive generation in wealthy countries tends to score slightly higher on these values, not because people change as they age but because each generation grew up in conditions of greater material security.
The practical implication: when comparing your values to people older or younger than you, both age effects (they've lived longer) and cohort effects (they grew up in different conditions) are likely operating. The two effects are not always easy to separate.
What this means for using your result
The Schwartz values test gives you a profile of your current priorities. The research on value change means several things for how you use that profile:
Re-testing at major life transitions is meaningful. If you're about to become a parent, start a new career, or enter a new life stage, the profile you have now may shift somewhat. The predicted direction of the shift depends on the transition: parenthood toward Conservation; significant career achievement possibly toward Achievement; major disruption toward Security; sustained other- focused work possibly toward Benevolence and Universalism.
Your result reflects your current situation, not your permanent self. Particularly if you're in an acute life stressor or a recent major transition, the test is capturing your priorities as they are now, with the state effects of those circumstances incorporated. A result taken six months after a major disruption may look somewhat different from one taken in stable conditions.
Long-term relationship value compatibility needs periodic re-examination. Two partners who assessed their value profiles at 28 and built their shared life around those profiles may find at 48 that both profiles have shifted — hopefully in compatible directions, not necessarily in identical amounts. The Schwartz framework is most useful as an ongoing diagnostic, not a one-time typological assessment.
Take the Schwartz values test. How to read your Schwartz values result covers the interpretive layer in detail. Schwartz values and relationships addresses the relational implications specifically.