The Effect of Political Regime on the Association of Values with Subjective Well-Being

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2025-01-09 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00841-9
Eduard Ponarin, Yulia Afanasyeva
{"title":"The Effect of Political Regime on the Association of Values with Subjective Well-Being","authors":"Eduard Ponarin, Yulia Afanasyeva","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00841-9","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Previous research has often demonstrated that liberal values and democratic regimes are associated with higher levels of subjective well-being (SWB). However, consistent results are only found at the country level, while at the individual level the relationship between values, democracy, and SWB is not as clear. This article analyzes recent data from 86 countries and shows that individual SWB depends on whether one’s values match the country’s predominant values and political system. In authoritarian countries, those with more conservative values tend to exhibit higher levels of SWB, reaching a level of happiness comparable to that of an average person in a typical democracy. Conversely, their liberal-minded compatriots often report significantly lower levels of SWB. In democracies, people with more liberal values tend to have higher SWB than do conservatives, although this difference is not as robust as in autocracies. This study emphasizes the importance of political context in the relationship between liberal values and SWB.</p>","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00841-9","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Previous research has often demonstrated that liberal values and democratic regimes are associated with higher levels of subjective well-being (SWB). However, consistent results are only found at the country level, while at the individual level the relationship between values, democracy, and SWB is not as clear. This article analyzes recent data from 86 countries and shows that individual SWB depends on whether one’s values match the country’s predominant values and political system. In authoritarian countries, those with more conservative values tend to exhibit higher levels of SWB, reaching a level of happiness comparable to that of an average person in a typical democracy. Conversely, their liberal-minded compatriots often report significantly lower levels of SWB. In democracies, people with more liberal values tend to have higher SWB than do conservatives, although this difference is not as robust as in autocracies. This study emphasizes the importance of political context in the relationship between liberal values and SWB.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政治制度对价值观与主观幸福感关联的影响
先前的研究经常表明,自由价值观和民主制度与较高水平的主观幸福感(SWB)有关。然而,一致的结果只在国家层面上发现,而在个人层面上,价值观、民主和幸福感之间的关系并不清楚。本文分析了来自86个国家的最新数据,并表明个人的幸福感取决于一个人的价值观是否与该国的主流价值观和政治制度相匹配。在专制国家,那些价值观更保守的人往往表现出更高的幸福感,达到与典型民主国家普通人相当的幸福水平。相反,他们的自由主义同胞的主观幸福感往往要低得多。在民主国家,拥有更自由价值观的人往往比保守派拥有更高的幸福感,尽管这种差异不像专制国家那样明显。本研究强调了政治背景在自由主义价值观与主观幸福感之间关系中的重要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.60
自引率
6.50%
发文量
110
期刊介绍: The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?
期刊最新文献
Unobserved Heterogeneity in the Relationship Between Life Satisfaction, Contentment, and Affect. Implications for Income’s Relevance Interplay between Teachers’ Affective Well-Being and Thriving at Work: A Cross-Lagged Study The Longitudinal Effect of Pre-war Investments in Hedonic Capital on Wartime Well-Being Who (Really) Wins with Basic Income: Personality and Values as Predictors of Happiness Trajectories The Effect of Political Regime on the Association of Values with Subjective Well-Being
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1