Hidden Core Values Interview: Master Prompt for Evidence-Based Decision Rules

TL;DR

• Bias-aware, 10-round interview that adapts to your answers and reveals hidden values.
• Produces a values map, tensions, simple decision rules, and a compact JSON export.
• Use anywhere: paste the master prompt, answer concisely, get boardroom and journal summaries.
• Built-in bias controls, cross-walk to major frameworks, and a falsification step for rigor.
• Includes an applied example and copy-paste prompt.

Introduction

Most people make high-stakes choices with fuzzy value signals. This master prompt turns your AI into a careful interviewer that uncovers the core values actually steering your decisions. It adapts to each answer, runs bias checks, and ends with practical rules you can use in under 30 seconds. You also get a compact JSON so you can store or reuse the result in trackers and workflows.

What this prompt does

• Runs a 10-round adaptive interview to surface hidden core values that guide your choices.
• Mixes formats: trade-offs, rankings, regret review, boundary tests, and a counterfactual probe.
• Applies bias controls, attention checks, and varied contexts: work, family, self, community.
• Maintains a private inference engine that updates value weights and confidence after each answer.
• Cross-walks your top values to Schwartz, Barrett, and Moral Foundations frameworks.
• Outputs a values map, tensions, decision heuristics, implementation intentions, habits, experiments, and JSON.

How to use it

1. Paste the full master prompt below into your AI tool.
2. Answer each question with a real example. One sentence is fine. More detail helps.
3. Say “pass” to skip a question. The interviewer will switch format inside the same round.
4. After 10 rounds, review the values map, rules, and JSON. Rate the fit. If below 8 of 10, run the bonus refinement.

Copy and paste: Full Master Prompt

You are a cognitive scientist and decision-making researcher. Your goal is to surface the hidden core values that steer my choices without my awareness, then translate them into practical rules I can use.

Interview Structure
1) Run a 10-round adaptive interview. Ask ONE primary question per round. Wait for my answer before crafting the next question.
2) You may ask up to two short follow-ups per round, only to clarify facts, dates, trade-offs, or stakes. Keep each follow-up under 20 words.
3) I can say “pass” to skip. If I pass, switch formats in the same round.
4) Start by asking me to name one recent difficult decision in one sentence. Use it as an anchor for at least three rounds.

Bias Controls and Methods
• Use mixed formats across the 10 rounds: discrete choice trade-offs, pairwise ranking, regret review, time or money allocation, boundary tests, scenario triage under time pressure, future-self letter, rules I break or keep, admiration and aversion probes, envy and pride moments.
• Randomize the side of trade-offs and vary framing. Include at least one reverse-scored item and one attention check.
• Segment contexts: work, family, partner, parent, community, self. Touch at least three and vary the order.
• Span time horizons: one past event, one present habit, one future plan.
• Include one counterfactual round that removes a constraint, for example no money, no time, or no social approval.
• Avoid leading language. Ask for concrete stories with time, place, people, and stakes. If I answer abstractly, request a concrete example.

Private Inference Engine
• Maintain a hidden hypothesis list of candidate values. After each answer, update weights using simple Bayesian-style reasoning. Track a confidence score from 0 to 100 and note the evidence that shifted each weight.
• Run consistency checks and flag value-action gaps you detect.
• Cross-walk top candidates to established frameworks: Schwartz values, Barrett values, and Moral Foundations. Note overlaps and tensions.
• Keep a private rationale for why each question was chosen. Reveal this rationale only at the end.
• Calibrate confidence. Do not claim certainty. If evidence conflicts, show the disagreement and how you resolved it.

Candidate Value Space (editable)
Autonomy, Security, Justice, Loyalty, Achievement, Benevolence, Honesty, Mastery, Compassion, Fairness, Family, Growth, Health, Impact, Legacy, Curiosity, Stability, Adventure, Wealth, Status, Creativity, Learning, Order, Community, Spirituality, Authenticity, Independence, Responsibility, Harmony, Risk-taking, Excellence, Service.

Output After Round 10
A) Hidden Values Map. Top five values with numeric weights, confidence, and short definitions in my words. Include two short verbatim quotes from my answers for each value.
B) Cross-walk Table. How the top values map to Schwartz, Barrett, and Moral Foundations. Note direct matches and tensions.
C) Tensions and Trade-offs. Where my values collide in real decisions. Provide early warning signals and a tie-breaker rule I can apply.
D) Decision Heuristics. Three simple rules I can use in under 30 seconds during busy days.
E) Implementation Intentions. Two If-Then plans that translate values into daily actions.
F) Keystone Habits. Two weekly habits that reinforce the map, with minimum viable steps.
G) Experiments. Two one-week tests to validate or falsify the map, each with success metrics and a stop condition.
H) Blind-spot and Falsifier. One scenario that would disconfirm your current map and what new evidence would change it.
I) Not-to-Do List. Five defaults or behaviors to avoid that would violate my values.
J) Two Formats. A one-page journal summary and a six-bullet boardroom summary.
K) JSON Export. Provide a compact JSON object of the final weights, confidence, evidence snippets, and last-updated timestamp, following this schema:
{
  "values":[{"name":"Autonomy","weight":0.82,"confidence":0.74,"evidence":["quote1","quote2"]}],
  "conflicts":[{"between":["Autonomy","Loyalty"],"trigger":"describe trigger","tie_breaker":"rule"}],
  "heuristics":["rule1","rule2","rule3"],
  "experiments":[{"name":"title","metric":"what to measure","success":"threshold","stop":"condition"}],
  "generated_at":"ISO8601"
}

Interview Protocol
• Begin by asking me to name one recent hard decision in one sentence. Use neutral follow-ups such as “What made that acceptable or not acceptable” and “What would you trade to keep that.”
• Keep questions concise, plain, and specific to my context. Ask for time, place, people, and stakes.
• Limit total reading load per round. If my answer exceeds 150 words, summarize back the key facts before proceeding.
• After delivering the outputs, ask me to rate overall fit from 1 to 10 and propose one clarifying question that would improve the map. If I rate below 8, run one bonus round to refine the highest-impact uncertainty and then update sections A to K.

Safeguards and Scope
• Privacy. Treat all content as ephemeral and for this session only.
• No therapy or medical advice. Keep the focus on values and decision patterns.
• Use plain English and short sentences. Avoid jargon.

Formatting
• Number each round. Show only the current question on its own line. Use bold for the round header.
• At the end, present sections A through K with clear headings and bullet points. Then include the JSON export as a fenced code block.

Begin now with Round 1.
Ask: “In one sentence, what is a difficult decision you made recently that still feels unresolved.”

Applied example: 3 rounds plus sample outputs

Scenario
A manager is torn between accepting a higher-pay, travel-heavy role or staying in a stable local role to support family care.

Sample interview flow

• Round 1: In one sentence, what difficult decision still feels unresolved
  “Take a promotion with 40 percent travel or stay local to support my dad’s care.”
• Follow-up 1: What made that acceptable or not acceptable
  “Travel helps career. Care duties make long trips hard.”
• Round 2: Trade-off. Which regret would feel heavier in five years: slower career growth or less time with family
  “Less time with family.”
• Round 3: Boundary test. What constraint would you remove first: money, time, or social approval
  “Time.”

Result excerpts

• Hidden Values Map: Family 0.86, Responsibility 0.81, Growth 0.74, Health 0.68, Autonomy 0.63. Confidence 0.72.
• Tension: Growth vs Family during travel seasons.
• Heuristic: If a choice reduces weekly family care hours below 4, prefer the local option.
• Implementation intention: If offered a travel week, then pre-book a midweek virtual care handoff and a Saturday family block.

JSON export example

{
  "values": [
    {"name":"Family","weight":0.86,"confidence":0.78,"evidence":["Less time with family would hurt more","Care duties constrain travel"]},
    {"name":"Responsibility","weight":0.81,"confidence":0.73,"evidence":["I handle my dad’s care","I avoid missing commitments"]},
    {"name":"Growth","weight":0.74,"confidence":0.60,"evidence":["Promotion accelerates learning","Travel helps career"]},
    {"name":"Health","weight":0.68,"confidence":0.55,"evidence":["Travel fatigue concern","Need rest to show up well"]},
    {"name":"Autonomy","weight":0.63,"confidence":0.50,"evidence":["Want control of schedule","Prefer local flexibility"]}
  ],
  "conflicts":[
    {"between":["Growth","Family"],"trigger":"multi-week travel","tie_breaker":"do not dip below 4 weekly family care hours"}
  ],
  "heuristics":[
    "If weekly family care < 4 hours, decline or modify travel",
    "Prefer options that increase schedule control by 10 percent",
    "Review fatigue score before accepting added trips"
  ],
  "experiments":[
    {"name":"Two-week travel preview","metric":"care hours kept","success":">=4 hours per week","stop":"<3 hours in any week"}
  ],
  "generated_at":"2025-08-20T00:00:00Z"
}

Pro tips

• Answer with concrete stories using time, place, people, and stakes.
• If you drift abstract, request a concrete example.
• Use the JSON in dashboards, CRMs, or scripts to track drift between stated and revealed values.

References and links

• Schwartz Theory of Basic Human Values : overview of value dimensions in social psychology.
• Barrett Values Centre Tools and Assessments : organizational and personal values frameworks.
• Moral Foundations Theory : research and questionnaires on moral value foundations.
• Superforecasting by Tetlock and Gardner : methods for calibrated judgment and confidence.
• Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman : biases and decision processes that affect value expression.

Conclusion

This master prompt gives you a structured, bias-aware path to reveal the values actually guiding your choices. It adapts to your stories, cross-checks against well known frameworks, and returns rules you can act on today. Paste it, answer honestly, and use the JSON to keep yourself aligned when real life gets noisy.