Abstract
Participants (
Leo Tolstoy’s memorable
Besides living conditions and health, personality characteristics may be associated with subjective well-being (SWB), mainly because they are difficult to separate. By examining how one usually feels, thinks, and behaves—typically referred to as one’s personality characteristics (McCrae & Costa, 2003)—it is possible to predict with reasonable accuracy how happy and satisfied one is with his or her life or SWB (Lucas & Diener, 2008). It was concluded more than 15 years ago that “a substantial portion of stable SWB is due to personality” (Diener & Lucas, 1999, p. 214), and a later meta-analyses of hundreds of personality traits demonstrated that, among other findings, those associated with the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Agreeableness dimensions are indeed linked to SWB (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Steel, Schmidt, & Shultz, 2008). This suggests that some people simply tend to be on average happier than others, regardless of their everyday circumstances. However, individual differences may not be the only reason as to why countries may differ in the average level of happiness. Because the mean difference in personality traits across countries is about 8.5 times smaller than the difference between any two individuals, randomly selected from these samples (Allik et al., 2017), it may not be enough to explain the observed cultural differences in terms of SWB.
Although the general link between SWB and personality has been firmly established, the precise nature of this association remains problematic. It is more or less obvious that Neuroticism is linked negatively, and Extraversion and Conscientiousness positively to SWB (DeNeve & Cooper, 1998; Dobewall, Realo, Allik, Esko, & Metspalu, 2013; Hayes & Joseph, 2003; Lucas & Diener, 2008; Steel et al., 2008; Vittersø, 2001; Weiss, Bates, & Luciano, 2008), but the contribution of other personality dimensions, as well as their specific facets, to SWB is less clear.
One reason for this is the complicated nature of personality judgments themselves. When an individual describes his or her personality, or somebody’s personality he or she knows sufficiently well, the resulting personality scores are a mixture of different components. In addition to differential information—in what way a person (the target of his or her ratings) is different from other people—scores also contain information about stereotypic accuracy (similarity of all people) and social desirability (Cronbach, 1955; Cronbach & Gleser, 1953; Gage & Cronbach, 1955). When we observe correlation between SWB and personality traits, we are not generally aware of which components of personality judgments are responsible for the observed correlation. It is logical to expect that differential information explains the lion’s share of this correlation; but, it is not impossible for stereotypic accuracy to be responsible for the observed link (at least in part), also.
Although basic techniques on how to separate the distinctiveness of personality profiles (differential accuracy) from normativeness (stereotypic accuracy) are nowadays widely used (Allik, Borkenau, Hrebícková, Kuppens, & Realo, 2015; Bernieri, Zuckerman, Koestner, & Rosenthal, 1994; Borkenau & Zaltauskas, 2009; Furr, 2008), these methods are not very useful if we are to examine the relationship between personality traits and some external variables. If we transform personality scores using a linear transformation (e.g., by standardizing them by fixing their means to zero—the operation required for computing distinctiveness scores), the correlations with external variables remain unchanged. This means that for identifying different components of personality judgment, we need to use other techniques.
One of these alternative methods is to administer the same personality questionnaire using different instructions. For example, in addition to asking people to faithfully describe their own personalities, it is also possible to instruct participants to describe the personality of a “generalized” person. In this study, we asked our participants to describe the personality traits of an ideal person (Edwards, 1957): “Please try to describe an ideal person with the most desirable personality characteristics.” The same group of participants were also asked to rate a typical Russian living in their region (cf. Allik, Mõttus, & Realo, 2010). Using different instructions, it was possible to distinguish the contributions of different components of judgments. Another instruction is to describe a typical representative of a nation (Terracciano et al., 2005) or a ethnical group (Allik, Alyamkina, & Meshcheryakov, 2015).
We cannot rule out, however, that SWB is essentially a normative concept. Imagine that the descriptions of an ideal person, not self-descriptions, are better predictors of SWB. For example, the more a person thinks that positive mood, friendliness, and dutifulness are socially desirable traits, the more satisfied he or she is with his or her life. An analogous relationship may exist between national stereotypes and SWB. Let us suppose that our participants think that a typical Russian is jovial, outgoing, and open-minded. Those who more strongly endorse this particular national stereotype are also happier and more satisfied with their lives. On the contrary, those who think that a typical Russian is miserable, timid, and bigoted are also unhappy and dissatisfied with their lives. Of course, these different scenarios of the relationship between different components of personality judgment and SWB do not exclude each other. They may contribute simultaneously to the relationship but with different strengths. One of the main aims of this article is to establish to what extent different components of personality ratings contribute to SWB.
Approximately 10 years ago, Russia ranked 168 out of 178 countries on the Satisfaction with Life Index (White, 2007). In the World Database of Happiness, participants are asked to answer the question, “Taking all together, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you currently with your life as a whole?” Using the scale from 1 =
With the exception of 2017 World Happiness Report, the consistently low positions have raised some doubts that Russian data may not reflect Russians’ self-appraisals adequately, due to distortions in translation and a differential response bias (Veenhoven, 2001). Recently, it was proposed that Russians (compared with Americans and other Western nations) reported greater inhibition of the expression of happiness. In other words, there may be a cultural norm which deters Russians from displaying the happiness they actually feel (Lynch, La Guardia, & Ryan, 2009; Sheldon et al., 2017). Although likely, it remains to be demonstrated if the size of the inhibition is large enough to explain the relatively low position of Russians in the overall ranking of happiness. Also, proof is needed that Russian cultural display rules are more restrictive than those of other cultures (cf. Safdar et al., 2009). It was observed, for example, that Russians tend to express emotions with higher authenticity than Germans (Mendzheritskaya, Hansen, & Horz, 2015), which may cast doubt on the theory of cultural inhibition.
It has been proposed that social and economic hardships, a high crime rate, and high levels of alcohol consumption are among the main factors that contribute to relatively low levels of life satisfaction in Russia, although the direction and presence of the cause and effect may be disputed (Frijters, Geishecker, Haisken-DeNew, & Shields, 2006; Massin & Kopp, 2014; Stickley, Koyanagi, Roberts, Goryakin, & McKee, 2015). It is well known that in countries with high levels of human development, life satisfaction becomes disentangled from money (Diener & Biswas-Diener, 2002; Diener, Diener, & Diener, 1995; Diener & Seligman, 2004; Kuppens et al., 2008). The same rule is valid at the level of individual because emotional well-being seems to stop rising beyond a certain annual income (Kahneman & Deaton, 2010). Thus, Russia belongs to a group of nations where the link between life satisfaction and material factors may be still present.
In addition, we cannot neglect a possibility that cultural factors determine, at least in part, the level of life satisfaction. A common view, as noticed by Joshanloo and Weijers (2014), in contemporary Western culture is that personal happiness is one of the most important values in life. For example, in American culture, unlike many others, it is believed that failing to appear happy is cause for concern. The authors of that article introduced the concept of aversion of happiness (Joshanloo and Weijers, 2014), which may be relatively widespread in some cultures and not in others. It is possible that a low level of life satisfaction among Russians is the result of this aversion to happiness. Indeed, Anna Wierzbicka identified one of several keywords that most accurately reflects the Russian mentality as
It is often alleged that the Russian national character is unique, being very different from European and Asian cultures (Allik et al., 2011). Among the allegedly unique features, Russians have generally negative attitudes toward money and material welfare (Trifonova, 2005). Russia is apparently one of the few places where the biblical wisdom that “it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God” is believed to be true. In contrasting themselves with the materialistic cultures of the West, Russians began to define themselves in terms of their spiritual qualities, through their distinctive “Russian soul” (Allik et al., 2011). The spiritual values of Russians are perceived as an alternative to the mentality of Western culture, which is considered exceedingly materialistic, lacking a desirable spirituality (Wierzbicka, 2002). Provided that Russian mentality is based on exceptional spiritual foundation, it is expected that the notion of money and happiness is incongruous, which finds support among a sizable portion of the Russian population. For example, researchers have found some evidence that negative attitudes toward money are associated with a higher level of trust, tolerance, and civic identity (Tatarko & Schmidt, 2012). From another perspective, ignoring unfavorable material conditions is a rational strategy for protecting one’s life satisfaction from a direct dependence on material conditions.
The purpose of this study is to identify factors that are associated with young Russians’ happiness and life satisfaction. In the
Method
Participants and Procedure
Members of the RCPS, which involved 40 universities or colleges from across the Russian Federation, collected valid data from 10,672 participants. The 40 samples were collected in 34 federal regions (oblast, krai, okrug, or republic), of which six (Novosibirsk, Primorsk, Sverdlovsk, Tatarstan, Udmurtia, and Volgograd) were represented by two samples. Data were collected during the period 2006 to 2007. More precise information about RCPS can be found in our previous publications (Allik et al., 2010; Allik et al., 2009; Allik et al., 2011).
Each of the 40 samples was divided into two separate groups. The first group in each sample (3,705 participants across all samples; mean age: 20.7 ± 2.9 years; 75% women) was instructed to fill in the Finally, we would like to know which answers to the inventory items would be most desirable when one is trying to gain the approval of other people. In other words, please try to describe an ideal person with the most desirable personality characteristics.
In each of the 40 samples, the second group of participants (N = 7,065; 78% women; mean age: 20.9 ± 3.6 years) was asked, in addition to self-ratings using the NCS, to identify an ethnically Russian adult or college-aged man or woman they knew well and to rate this target using the Russian observer-rating version of the Neuroticism-Extraversion-Openness Personality Inventory–Revised (NEO PI-R; not considered in this article). Together with the first group of participants, the number of valid NCS self-rating protocols was 10,672. All questionnaires contained items measuring happiness, life satisfaction, religiosity, and other topics.
Measures
SWB
The questionnaire contained two items which measured SWB. The items were taken from the questionnaire of the World Values Survey and were worded as follows: “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole these days?” The response scale consisted of a 10-point scale, with extreme points labeled 1 =
NCS
The NCS consists of 30 bipolar scales with two or three adjectives or phrases at each pole of the scale (Terracciano et al., 2005). For example, the first item asks how likely it is that the assessed target is anxious, nervous, and worried versus how at ease, calm, or relaxed he or she is. There are five response options between the poles. Each of the bipolar scales measures one of the 30 facets assessed by the NEO PI-R (McCrae & Costa, 2010), with six items for each of the five major dimensions of personality traits. Although the NCS was initially designed for measurement of national stereotypes, it is also suitable for measuring self-ratings and social desirability (Allik et al., 2010; Realo et al., 2009).
Satisfaction with financial situation (SFS)
Participants were asked about satisfaction with their financial situation. The response scale had 10 points ranging from 1 =
Subjective social status (SSS or MacArthur Ladder)
Participants were asked to position themselves on an imaginary 10-step social or MacArthur ladder (Adler, Epel, Castellazzo, & Ickovics, 2000). The item read, People belong to different strata of society. It could be imagined as a ladder along which one can move up, as well as down, in society. The top of the ladder represents the highest position in society in terms of wealth and influence. At the bottom of the ladder are those who are literally expelled from the society. Where would you place yourself on this ladder?
Participants were asked to place themselves on the step that they, though, best represented their social standing.
Religiosity
Religiosity was measured with a 10-point response scale, with the extremes marked: 0 =
Materialism–idealism
Participants were asked to decide to which opposite points of view they feel more sympathy. For example, one pair of opposing views stated that “Material things are no less important than spiritual” and “Spiritual is primary and material is secondary.” These descriptions marked the opposite ends on a 10-point response scale.
Regional Level Indicators
Human Development Index (HDI)
The 34 federal regions were characterized by a set of demographic (density of population) and socioeconomic indicators. The HDI, characterizing each federal region, was obtained from the Independent Institute for Social Policy (IISP) homepage (Allik et al., 2009). The HDI is a combined measure of life quality, which is computed on the basis of three indicators with equal weight: life expectancy at birth, overall literacy combined with secondary and tertiary education enrollment ratio, and gross domestic product (GDP) per capita at purchasing power parity in U.S. dollars.
Index of Democracy (IoD)
This index characterizes the development of democracy in the regions (Yearbook 2007, 2007).
Life-Quality Index (LQI)
LQI is a composite index of life quality in different regions of the Russian Federation (Yearbook 2007, 2007).
Results
The mean scores of SWB for each sample are shown in the first column of Table 1. Because differences between samples were not large, SWB varied in a relatively limited range from –.25 (Yoshar-Ola) to .26 (Moscow). The mean scores of several indicators and personality characteristics are also shown: N3: Depression; E6: Positive Emotions; Subjective Socio-economic Status (MacArtur Ladder); Satisfaction with one’s finances; Religiosity Index; Materialism/Idealism Index; HDI; LQI; Democracy Index (rank in the Russian Federation); Distance from Moscow (km).
The Mean Scores of Measures and Indicators for 40 Studied Samples.
Multiple regression is a measure of how well a given variable, say SWB, can be predicted using a linear function of a set of other variables, such as personality scores or HDI. One could say, of course, that multilevel modeling would be a more appropriate method for the analysis but because variances in subsamples were comparable, there was no reason to expect that the correlations based on individual level data and the correlations based on aggregated data from individuals are different (Ostroff, 1993). Based on these considerations, we started the analyses by predicting SWB from personality ratings. We first conducted the analysis by using the self-ratings as predictors. Then, multiple regression was conducted with using the ratings of an ideal person. Finally, the ratings of typical Russian were used as predictors.
First, we computed multiple regression on the basis of self-ratings from which we predicted the SWB scores. The beta coefficients of the regression are shown in Figure 1. It shows that only two traits out of 30 have statistically significantly strong associations with SWB. Low level of N3: Depression and high level of E6: Positive Emotions predicted a high level of SWB with a beta coefficient higher than |.12|. We also predicted the SWB rating using the ratings of an ideal person and, consequently, the ratings of a typical Russian. None of these ratings predicted SWB strongly enough (above |.10|). Perhaps the strongest predictor was the social desirability ratings of O1: Fantasy. Those participants who thought that openness to fantasy is a desirable trait reported a higher level of SWB. In general, however, social desirability and typicality were not strongly related to happiness and life-satisfaction ratings.

Beta coefficients of the multiple regression by which SWB was predicted from 30 personality scales answered under different instructions (self-, ideal, and stereotype ratings).
Next, we predicted SWB from the 10 indicators listed in Table 1. Besides regression coefficients, Table 2 also shows correlations between SWB and indicators on the individual (
Correlations and Coefficients of Multiple Regression Predicting SWB From Measures and Indicators at Individual and Sample Level.
On the individual level of analysis, approximately 27% of SWB variance can be predicted from N3: Depression and E6: Positive Emotion scores, in addition to religiosity, materialism–idealism, subjective SES, and satisfaction with one’s financial situation. When SWB was predicted from the sample mean scores, only two indicators made a significant contribution. In those samples and regions where the HDI was higher and people were more satisfied with their financial situation, the level of SWB was also higher. Multiple regression with these two significant predictors explained about 71% of the SWB variance at the aggregated level.
Discussion and Conclusion
Personality researchers are well aware that every personality score is a mixture of different components of judgment. Besides distinctiveness—how a given target distinguishes from an average individual—personality judgments also reflect, to a different degree, various forms of normativeness and social desirability. Personality judgments may be accurate or inaccurate because the one who makes them assumes that his or her target is to some extent similar to every other person he or she could know or is a typical representative of his or her own nation. Judges can also attribute traits based on the expectations they have with respect to normal, socially acceptable behavior. For example, we may assume that someone is punctual not because we have previous experience with this person but merely because we believe that people usually try to comply with such socially acceptable norms. As such, this implies that the observed correlations between personality traits and SWB may not be caused by the distinctive accuracy of our judgments, but may be at least partly due to the factors of assumed similarity and social desirability.
In this study, we tried to separate the different components of judgment by using different instructions. For example, questionnaire items for the self- or other-ratings can be judged on the basis of their social desirability (Edwards, 1957). Although instructions may be different, the answers given to these various instructions are typically correlated. For example, the judged desirability of a trait is highly correlated with the probability that the trait will be endorsed either in self- or other-descriptions (Edwards, 1953). However, the results of this study demonstrated that SWB is substantially linked to self-descriptions and not to the description of a typical member one’s own nation or an ideal person who is socially acceptable. What people think about a typical Russian or an ideal person was generally unrelated to whether they are themselves satisfied with their own lives. Thus, real feelings, and not what someone is normatively expected to feel, determine life satisfaction and happiness.
One could say that there is nothing new in the reported results because everyone knows that a high level of Extraversion and a low level of Neuroticism facilitate SWB; it is generally believed that the link between SWB and personality is organized in terms of the Big Five dimensions (Olesen, Thomsen, & O’Toole, 2015; Steel & Ones, 2002). Like some previous studies (e.g., Dobewall et al., 2013), this one demonstrated that the link of SWB to personality traits is rather selective. When SWB was predicted from personality, two subscales (of the personality test), N3: Depression and E6: Positive Emotions, explained the largest portion of the variance. Considering the fact that depression is almost synonymous with negative emotions, we can conclude that the main content of SWB is entirely emotional. People are happy and satisfied with their lives when they are able to avoid negative emotions and experience positive ones. Furthermore, the item measuring E6: Positive Emotions directly mentioned “happiness,” as did the question about happiness, which was part of the SWB index. In addition, the item measuring N3: Depression referred to being “satisfied,” which is almost synonymous with being “happy.” As a result, the associations between personality scales and SWB may reflect construct (if not direct measurement) overlaps.
It is tempting to speak about SWB and personality as separate constructs. Indeed, only if we can measure SWB independently of personality traits would we be permitted to use causal language (e.g., that avoidance of negative emotions and the experience of positive ones determines happiness and satisfaction). In reality, emotions do not cause happiness and life satisfaction. It is impossible to ignore the point that items which are difficult to separate from each other can be used to measure both constructs. From this perspective, positive and negative emotions are simply attributes that are necessary for the definition of what it means to be happy and satisfied with one’s own life. The answer is simple: well-being is mainly not worrying and staying happy!
Previous studies have shown that the mean scores of happiness have a meaningful pattern of geographic distribution (Aslam & Corrado, 2012; Oswald & Wu, 2010; Rentfrow, Mellander, & Florida, 2009). The geographic distribution of SWB in the Russian Federation seems to have the same principal pattern. Residents of various constituents of the Russian Federation have a high level of well-being where objective life quality is higher. However, when individual differences were smoothed out by means of aggregation, and we operated only with the mean values of samples, there was only one factor that explained regional differences in SWB. After controlling for all factors, only satisfaction with one’s financial situation explained interregional differences in mean SWB. This observation is supported by other observations, such as the residents of the Russian Federation being mainly concerned with their health and difficult financial situation (OECD, 2011, 2015).
It is certainly an interesting result that the mean SWB scores were not directly related to the objectively measured economic wealth of a region but to the average perceived wealth of an individual. Unfortunately, to avoid the discontinuation of participation in the study, we avoided questions concerning individual incomes. Therefore, we are not aware of, for example, how satisfaction with a participant’s financial situation relates to their actual financial situation. On the aggregate level, the economic wealth of the region was not related to the mean satisfaction with personal finances in this region. However, satisfaction with personal finances was generally higher in constituents with a higher life expectancy. In those regions of the Russian Federation where people are healthier and live longer, individuals are, on average, more satisfied with their financial situation (
It is remarkable that on both levels of the analysis—individual and aggregated—endorsement of spiritual values is accompanied with higher levels of happiness and life satisfaction. It was also proposed that it is a Russian cultural norm to inhibit the expression of happiness, the result of which drives Russia very often to the bottom of various cross-cultural rankings of happiness (Sheldon et al., 2017). It was also an idea that unhappiness is a unique aspect of the Russian soul, which may prevent participants to express their life satisfaction in a true extent (Allik et al., 2011). The declared priority of spirituality over material needs vanished when we looked for a joint influence of all factors affecting SWB. On the aggregated level, SWB was almost completely explained by the mean value of financial satisfaction, not other factors including the primacy of spiritual values in one’s life. This indicates that although participants emphasized priority of spiritual over material needs, in reality their life satisfaction was more predictable from the gratification they obtained from their financial situation (Ahuvia, 2008; Schyns, 2001).
As is the case with many studies, this one, too, has some limitations that ought to be considered while interpreting the results. First, it should be acknowledged that we used single-item indicators of Big Five domains that could involve more measurement error that could attenuate the effects. Although one way to minimize the measurement error would be to use latent variable modeling (and aggregating scores of five traits), we opted for the more detailed view of personality characteristics with the trade-off of potential increase in measurement error. Second, the sample used in this study limits the generalization of the findings to an extent as university students were surveyed. Although it would have been interesting to include more representative sample (in terms of population), the current data provide uniqueness in the scope of regions surveyed. Third, we acknowledge that the sample used in this study is clustered, and the estimates of the obtained effects in the aggregate sample reflect a mixture of both group level and individual level effects. Fourth, the principal dependent variable was combined of a life satisfaction item and a 4-point happiness indicator that could results in higher measurement error. Finally, the statistical power for the multiple regression at the level of region is low, and this ought to be kept in mind while interpreting the results.
Although acknowledging the limitations mentioned above, the results of the current study are novel. First, the study is representative of 40 different regions of Russia, and it involved more than ten thousand participants—allowing for individual level and region level analysis. Second, the results showed that two personality test subscales, namely Depression (Neuroticism) and Positive Emotions (Extraversion) were correlated with SWB on the between-individual level of analysis. Third, SWB could be predicted from one’s own financial situation. Finally, in regions where people had, on average, higher life expectancy, better education, and higher level of wealth, individuals were happier and more satisfied with their lives.
Footnotes
Authors’ Note
Research data that support the findings of the current study are available upon scholarly request. The authors are grateful to Helle Pullmann, Anastasia Trifonova, and members of the Russian Character and Personality Survey (RCPS) for their assistance with collecting the data.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Preparation of this manuscript was supported by institutional research funding (IUT2-13) from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Science to Jüri Allik.
