Russians’ interpretation of happiness and its determinants: results of the survey

Authors

  • Nikolai P. Narbut RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Moscow 117198, Russia https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3622-305X
  • Irina V. Trotsuk RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Moscow 117198, Russia

Keywords:

happiness, social well-being, online survey, questionnaire, gender differences, generational differences
Supporting Agencies
The research was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (project No. 2001100307 «Subjective and objective measurements of happiness: justice as a criterion for personal and social well-being»).

Abstract

The article presents the results of the representative all-Russian online survey conducted in the late 2020 – early 2021, i. e., in the period defined today by the scientific, authorities and everyday discourses as pre-covid-19 or pre-pandemic. At that time, and the situation has not changed, rankings became extremely popular, including the ranking of countries by the level of happiness, despite the fact that the very word «happiness» is ambiguous, full of contradictory connotations and difficult to define conceptually and empirically even within the disciplinary framework of specific disciplines, including sociology. The article presents the results of the survey (dominant interpretations of happiness, self-estimates in terms of happiness, etc.) and methodological conclusions (pressure of social desirability, gender and generational measurements of happiness and its definitions) from the online survey conducted with the authors questionnaire which allowed respondents to assess their level of happiness and to express their opinion on how it should be defined and what can influence it (a combination of direct and indirect questions).

Author Biographies

  • Nikolai P. Narbut, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Moscow 117198, Russia

    doctor of science (sociology), full professor; head of the department of sociology, faculty of humanities and social sciences

  • Irina V. Trotsuk, RUDN University, 6 Miklukho-Maklaya Street, Moscow 117198, Russia

    doctor of science (sociology), full professor; professor at the department of sociology, faculty of humanities and social sciences

References

  1. Abramov AV, Bagdasaryan VE, Byshok SO, Volodenkov SV, Evstafiev DG, Egorov VG, et al. Pandemia COVID-19: The end of the familiar world? Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University (electronic journal) [Internet]. 2020 [cited 2021 August 14];2. DOI: 10.18384/2224-0209-2020-2-1001. Available from: https://evestnik-mgou.ru/ru/Articles/View/1001. Russian.
  2. Volkov YuG, Kurbatov VI. Global pandemic sociology: domestic and foreignscenarios and trends of the post-coronavirus world. Humanities of the South of Russia. 2020;9(2):17–32. Russian. DOI: 10.18522/2227-8656.2020.2.1.
  3. Grishin VI, Domashchenko DV, Konstantinova LV, Koshkin AP, Ustyuzhanina EV, Shtykhno DA, et al. Life after the pandemic: Economic and social consequences. Vestnik Rossiiskogo ekonomicheskogo universiteta imeni G. V. Plekhanova. 2020;3:5–18. Russian. DOI: 10.21686/2413-2829-2020-3-5-18.
  4. Oslon AA. Sotsiologiya pandemii. Proekt koronaFOM [Sociology of the pandemic. Project CoronaFOM]. Moscow: Institut fonda «Obshchestvennoe mnenie»; 2021. 319 p. Russian.
  5. Toshchenko ZhT. Obshchestvo travmy: mezhdu evolyutsiei i revolyutsiei (opyt teoreticheskogo i empiricheskogo analiza) [Society of trauma: between evolution and revolution (a case of theoretical and empirical analysis)]. Moscow: Ves’ mir; 2020. 352 p. Russian.
  6. Belyaeva LA. [The level and quality of life. Measurement and interpretation issues]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2009;1:33–42. Russian.
  7. Karabchuk TS, Salnikova DV. [Objective and subjective well-being: a comparative analysis of the countries of Central Asia, Russia and Belarus]. Sotsiologicheskie issledovaniya. 2016;5:96–109. Russian.
  8. Klimova AM, Chmel KSh. Regional differences in subjective wellbeing: does social policy offset the effects of inequality in Russia? Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny. 2020;1:143–176. Russian. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2020.1.07.
  9. Latova NV. Russian satisfaction with life during the crisis: 2015 as a year of bifurcation. Monitoring obshchestvennogo mneniya: ekonomicheskie i sotsial’nye peremeny. 2016;3:16–37. Russian. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2016.3.02.
  10. Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. Mismeasuring our lives. Why GDP doesn’t add up. New York: The New Press; 2016. 176 p. Russian edition: Stiglitz JE, Sen A, Fitoussi J-P. Neverno otsenivaya nashu zhizn. Pochemu VVP ne imeet smysla. Doklad Komissii po izmereniyu effektivnosti ekonomiki i sotsialnogo progressa. Kushnareva I, translator; Drobyshevskaya T, editor. Moscow: Izdatel’stvo Instituta Gaidara; 2015. 216 p.
  11. Trotsuk IV, Grebneva VY. Possibilities and limitations of the key methodological approaches to the study of happiness. Moscow State University Bulletin. Series 18. Sociology and Political Science. 2019;25(3):7–35. Russian. DOI: 10.24290/1029-3736-2019-25-3-7-35.
  12. Argyle M. The psychology of happiness. 2nd edition. London: Routledge; 2001. 288 p. Russian edition. Argyle M. Psikhologiya schastya. Saint Petersburg: Piter; 2003. 271 p. (Mastera psikhologii).
  13. Trotsuk IV, Koroleva KI. [Nonobvious limitations of the sociological study of well-being: results of the methodological experiment]. Sotsial’naya politika i sotsiologiya. 2020;19(1):107–114. Russian.
  14. Trotsuk IV, Koroleva KI. [Subjective well-being – quality of life or happiness?]. Gumanitarnye, sotsialno-ekonomicheskie i obshchestvennye nauki. 2020;9:57–62. Russian. DOI: 10.23672/w3129-9969-0189-t.
  15. Trotsuk IV. Three approaches to the sociological study of the social well-being. Sociološki pregled. 2019;53(1):80–99. DOI: 10.5937/socpreg53-20845.
  16. Shmatova YE, Morev MV. Assessing the level of happiness: a review of Russian and foreign research. Economic and Social Changes: Facts, Trends, Forecast. 2015;3:141–162. Russian. DOI: 10.15838/esc/2015.3.39.11.
  17. Trotsuk IV. [Methodological and conceptual issues of the sociological study of the phenomenon of happiness by survey techniques]. Sotsial’naya politika i sotsiologiya. 2019;18(1):147–156. Russian. DOI: 10.17922/2071-3665-2019-18-1-147-156.
  18. Rodionova LA. [Methodological aspects of measuring and modeling the level of happiness]. Economika. Upravlenie. Pravo. 2012;1:25–30. Russian.
  19. Andrews FM, Withey SB. Social indicators of well-being. Americans perceptions of life quality. New York: Springer; 1976. 476 p. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4684-2253-5.
  20. Narbut NP, Trotsuk IV. Tsennostnye orientatsii i sotsial’noe samochuvstvie studenchestva (rezul’taty issledovatel’skogo proekta) [Value orientations and social well-being of students (results of the research project)]. Moscow: RUDN University; 2017. 400 p. Russian.
  21. Narbut NP, Trotsuk IV. The social well-being of the post-Socialist countries’ youth (on the example of Russia, Kazakhstan and Czech Republic): comparative analysis of value orientations (part 1). RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018;18(1):131–155. Russian. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-1-131-155.
  22. Narbut NP, Trotsuk IV. The social well-being of the post-socialist countries’ youth (on the example of Russia, Kazakhstan and Czech Republic): comparative analysis of fears and hopes (part 2). RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2018;18(2):284–302. Russian. DOI: 10.22363/2313-2272-2018-18-2-284-302.
  23. Narbut NP, Trotsuk IV. Russian students’ life plans: gender and other differences in the estimates of prospects in the labor market. RUDN Journal of Sociology. 2014;(3):143–168. Russian.

Downloads

Published

2021-12-29

Issue

No. 4 (2021): Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology

Section

From the Working Table of a Sociologist

License

The authors who are published in this journal agree to the following:

  1. The authors retain copyright on the work and provide the journal with the right of first publication of the work on condition of license Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial. 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0).
  2. The authors retain the right to enter into certain contractual agreements relating to the non-exclusive distribution of the published version of the work (e.g. post it on the institutional repository, publication in the book), with the reference to its original publication in this journal.
  3. The authors have the right to post their work on the Internet (e.g. on the institutional store or personal website) prior to and during the review process, conducted by the journal, as this may lead to a productive discussion and a large number of references to this work. (See The Effect of Open Access.)

How to Cite

[1]
Narbut, N.P. and Trotsuk, I.V. 2021. Russians’ interpretation of happiness and its determinants: results of the survey. Journal of the Belarusian State University. Sociology. 4 (Dec. 2021), 82–96. DOI:https://doi.org/10.33581/2521-6821-2021-4-82-96.