The Security Value: Meaning, Trade-offs, and Profile.
Security is the value that asks, before anything else, whether things are safe and stable. In the Schwartz theory of basic values it covers both personal safety (health, a secure home, a sense of belonging) and the broader stability of the social order people depend on. When security ranks high among your priorities, threat and disorder weigh heavily, and the protection of what you have tends to come before the pursuit of what you might gain.
The security value
Security is one of the ten basic values in the Schwartz theory. Its motivational goal is safety, harmony, and stability - of yourself, your relationships, and the wider society. People who prioritize security are guided by a need for order, predictability, and protection from threat. It sits on the Conservation side of the values circle, opposite the openness values of Self-Direction and Stimulation, and it pairs naturally with Conformity and Power. A high relative priority on security is a description of what steadies you, not a verdict on caution or courage.
This page explains what the security value means, what it looks like when it ranks high, the openness values it structurally conflicts with, and the neighboring values it reinforces. As with every value in the model, the framing here is descriptive. Prizing security is not more mature or more timid than prizing adventure; it is simply a different ordering of what you treat as worth protecting.
What the security value means
In Schwartz terms, each value is defined by the goal it expresses, and the goal of security is safety, harmony, and stability across three levels: the self (a secure and healthy life), close relationships (belonging, reciprocation of favors), and society (national security, social order, a clean and predictable environment). These pull in the same direction because all of them reduce exposure to threat.
Crucially, this is about relative priority, not raw intensity. Almost everyone wants to be safe, so a values assessment reads security against your own average across all ten values - what you favor when safety and novelty cannot both be served. A high relative standing means that when a choice forces the issue, you tend to protect stability first.
What prioritizing security looks like
People for whom security ranks high are drawn to arrangements that are dependable and low in irreversible risk, and they read situations partly through the question of what could go wrong. The pattern shows up in everyday preferences more than in dramatic moments.
- Preferring a stable, established path over an uncertain but potentially higher-upside one
- Valuing routines, contingency plans, savings buffers, and clear rules that keep life predictable
- Feeling genuine discomfort when order breaks down - in a household, a team, or a society - and working to restore it
- Treating loyalty, belonging, and a settled environment as things worth real effort to maintain
The trade-off: security versus openness to change
On the values circle, security sits opposite Self-Direction and Stimulation, the two openness-to-change values. This is the structural tension that defines the security value: the same disposition that protects stability also resists the novelty, independence, and risk those opposing values seek. Someone high in security often feels real friction with strong demands for spontaneity or unconventional autonomy, because pursuing them threatens the order security is built to preserve.
This conflict is built into the model, not a personal shortcoming. It means a security-led profile and a stimulation-led profile will pull in different directions on the same decision - leaving a steady job for a venture, moving to a new country, overturning a settled routine - and that neither pull is the correct one. The value of knowing your standing on this axis is foresight: you can see in advance where safety and exploration will compete in your own choices.
The values security pairs with
Adjacent values on the circle share a motivational basis and are easy to hold together. Security sits between Conformity and Power, and it reinforces both. With Conformity it shares a concern for a stable, well-ordered social fabric: meeting expectations and restraining disruptive action both protect the harmony security depends on. With Power it shares a defensive logic - status, resources, and control are, among other things, ways of securing oneself against threat.
Because of this, security-led profiles often run alongside a respect for established norms (Conformity) and a wish to keep a firm footing (Power), and somewhat against the self-transcendence and openness values on the far side of the circle. None of these neighbors is a requirement; they are simply the priorities that tend to travel with security because they serve compatible goals.
Also relevant: Schwartz values explained
Frequently asked questions
What does it mean to value security?
It means that safety, harmony, and stability - for yourself, your relationships, and society - rank high among the goals you treat as worth pursuing. In the Schwartz model this is a relative priority: when stability and novelty cannot both be served, you tend to protect stability first. It is a description of what steadies you, not a judgment that caution is better or worse than risk-taking.
What value does security conflict with?
Security sits opposite Self-Direction and Stimulation on the values circle. The same priority that protects stability resists the independence, novelty, and risk those openness values seek, so a strong pull toward safety and a strong pull toward adventure are hard to satisfy at the same time. The conflict is structural, not a flaw in either profile.
Which values go well with security?
Conformity and Power are its neighbors on the circle. Security shares with Conformity a concern for a stable, well-ordered social fabric, and shares with Power a defensive logic in which status and resources help guard against threat. These priorities tend to travel together because they serve compatible goals.
Is valuing security a bad thing?
No. The Schwartz theory is descriptive, not prescriptive - no value is better or more mature than another. A high relative priority on security simply tells you that protecting stability tends to win when your values conflict. Its usefulness is self-understanding and foresight about where safety will compete with exploration in your decisions.
References
- Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1-65.
- Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1).
- Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2022). Personal values across cultures. Annual Review of Psychology, 73, 517-546.
Built and led by a PhD psychometrician who designed international assessment frameworks for the OECD. About the team · How our tests are built and validated