Роль моральной самооценки во взаимосвязи просоциального поведения и субъективного благополучия тема диссертации и автореферата по ВАК РФ 00.00.00, кандидат наук Настина Екатерина Александровна

• Настина Екатерина Александровна
• кандидат наук
• 2023

Оглавление диссертации кандидат наук Настина Екатерина Александровна

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 1: THEORETICAL AND METHODOLOGICAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE ROLE OF MORAL SELF-EVALUATION IN LINKING MORAL BEHAVIOR AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

1.1 Overview

1.2 Approaches to conceptualization and operationalization of moral self-evaluation

1.2.1 Defining moral self-evaluation

1.2.2 Measuring moral self-evaluation

1.2.3 Theoretical model: determinants and consequences of moral self-evaluation

1.3 Subjective well-being in social sciences

1.3.1 Approaches to happiness: hedonism and eudaimonia

1.3.2 Hedonic happiness as a problem

1.3.3 Subjective well-being: components and measurement

1.4 Moral self-evaluation as a predictor of subjective well-being

1.4.1 Mechanisms linking moral self-evaluation to subjective well-being

1.4.2 Assessment of empirical evidence

1.4.3 Alternative explanations of the relationship between moral self-evaluation and subjective well-being

1.5 Prosocial behavior and subjective well-being : mediating role of moral self-evaluation

1.5.1 Effect of prosocial behavior on subjective well-being

1.5.2 Potential mediators of the relationship

1.5.3 Importance of social context

1.6 Summary

CHAPTER 2. EMPIRICAL RESEARCH ON MORAL SELF-EVALUATION MEAUSRMENT AND ITS ROLE IN THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOR AND SUBJECTIVE WELL-BEING

2.1 Overview

2.2 Scales Development and Validation

2.2.1 Study 1. Idiographic variant of Moral Construct Scale

2.2.2 Study 2. Conventional variant of Moral Construct Scale

2.2.3 Study 3: MCS-C performance and self-enhancement

2.2.4 Study 4: Situational moral self-evaluation and its comparison to MCS-C

2.3 Moral self-evaluation as a predictor of subjective well-being in social interaction

2.3.1 Study 5a: Role of stable moral self-evaluation in the relationship between prosocial behavior and life satisfaction

2.3.2 Study 5b: Role of situational moral self-evaluation in the relationship between prosocial behavior and positive, negative affect and event-level subjective well-being

CONCLUSION

Theoretical and practical implications

Limitations and Future directions

REFERENCES

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

APPENDIX

Введение диссертации (часть автореферата) на тему «Роль моральной самооценки во взаимосвязи просоциального поведения и субъективного благополучия»

INTRODUCTION

Growing interest in empirical social research of morality (Hitlin and Vaisey, 2013) has created a demand for precise conceptualizations of moral constructs and reliable tools to measure them. In the last decades, a number of original theory-driven measurement techniques have appeared which allow researchers to shed light on a range of moral perceptions, judgments, and emotions. Some examples include the Moral Foundations Questionnaire (Graham et al., 2012), which allows us to uncover the systems of "intuitive ethics" underlying one's moral decision making, and the Moral Identity Scale (Aquino and Reed, 2002), which reveals how important moral characteristics are to one's self-image. However, until recently, the mechanism of moral self-evaluation as well as the causes and consequences of its intra- and inter-individual variability have received limited attention.

Meanwhile, a person's evaluation of themself as a moral agent has great potential in terms of exploring the causes and consequences of individual social actions, attitudes, and quality of life. Thus, people who, in a survey, reported behaving morally more often (e.g. engaged in charitable behavior and abstained from copying answers during a test), assessed themselves higher on such qualities as honesty, caring, kindness, etc., compared to those who did not engage in moral behavior (Stets and Carter, 2012). The positive relationship between prosocial acts and moral self-evaluation were further confirmed using the experience-sampling method, which required respondents to report their actions and emotions several times a day during a week (Prentice, Jayawickreme, Fleeson, 2020). In turn, some studies show that moral self-evaluation is positively associated with life satisfaction and positive emotions (Jordan, Leliveld and Tenbrunsel, 2015; Prentice et al., 2019).

In this light, moral self-evaluation presents a plausible link in the widely researched positive relationship between prosocial behavior, i.e., activity for the benefit of others, and subjective well-being (Aknin et al., 2019). However, to date, only one paper has empirically explored the mediating potential of moral self-evaluation in relation to one component of subjective well-being, positive affect (Miles and Upenieks, 2021). In addition, insufficient attention is paid to the potential differentiating effect of the relationship closeness between the agent and the recipient, which determines normative and role expectations in a specific situation of interaction. In terms of practical implications, it is an important task for social scientists to uncover the mechanisms of cooperation and factors of subjective well-being, which is becoming even more acute in the context of global crises. Indeed, a bulk of studies demonstrated that different types of crises that cause disruptions to life we used to affect subjective well-being (Bj0rnskov, 2014; Mohring et al., 2020). It is crucial to understand what interventions can be implemented to ameliorate these effects, and promoting random acts of kindness presents one potential solution (Miles et al., 2022). In terms of theoretical relevance, an analysis of the purported positive impact of socially shaped moral self-evaluation on subjective well-being should enhance our understanding of the mechanisms of non-aversive social control based on internal reward mechanisms.

The main hypothesis of this dissertation is that moral self-evaluation should mediate the relationship between prosocial behavior and subjective well-being. To test it, we need reliable tools that allow us to measure moral self-evaluation comprehensively and accurately. However, despite the importance of self-evaluation processes in socially-oriented theories of morality (Bandura, 1999; Stets and Carter, 2012), there is still a certain lack of reliable and ecologically valid scales capturing the former. The main difficulty in measuring moral self-evaluation is the self-enhancement bias, i.e., overly positive assessment of one's own qualities, especially salient in

the moral context (Tappin and McKay, 2017). People are motivated to maintain favorable moral self-evaluation by living up to their moral standards, but if they fail to do so, a number of defense mechanisms may be activated to avoid negative feelings associated with it (Hitlin, 2008). These cognitive mechanisms are worthy of research in themselves; however, their interaction with certain scale features may introduce distortions in moral self-evaluation reports, e.g. due to social desirability and focalism. Thus, it is an important task to develop a tool which minimizes the measurement error.

In addition, the sociological approach to moral self-evaluation measurement should be methodologically relativist in nature (Hitlin and Vaisey, 2013), which discourages the use of a priori defined universal moral evaluation criteria. Instead, an adequate tool must reflect the cultural context, the actor's perception of the point of view of the other (Cooley, 1902; Mead, 1934; James, 1950) and the mechanisms of social comparison (Tesser, Millar and Moore, 1988), while also being sensitive to social processes shaping moral self-valuation.

The aim of this dissertation project is to uncover the role of moral self-evaluation in the relationship between prosocial behavior and subjective well-being while taking into account relationship closeness between the benefactor and the recipient. To achieve it, the following objectives are pursued:

- introduce the theoretical and methodological foundations for the research of moral self-evaluation as a multi-faceted construct;

- develop an integrative, theoretical model of moral self-evaluation, explicating its causal relationships to other concepts, including prosocial behavior and subjective well-being;

- provide theoretical rationale for the important part of moral self-evaluation in the relationship between prosocial behavior and subjective well-being with a special focus on the importance of the relationship closeness between the benefactor and the recipient;

- develop culture-sensitive instruments to measure moral self-evaluation, assess and compare them on the grounds of reliability and validity;

- empirically examine the mediation potential of moral self-evaluation in the relationship between prosocial behavior and subjective well-being, while accounting for relationship closeness to the beneficiary using selected measures.

The current project draws on a number of theoretical frameworks. Thus, in line with self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1987), moral self-evaluation is defined as the result of a comparison of the perception of oneself in the present and internalized moral standards (personal and societal). Conceptualization of subjective well-being follows the multidimensional model which includes positive and negative affect and global judgments of about one's life (Diener, Napa Scollon and Lucas, 2009). This framework also implies that short-lived on-line emotional reactions and more lasting and stable forms of well-being have different formation mechanisms. The hypotheses referring to the mediation potential of moral self-evaluation partly draw on Stets and Carter's (2012) sociological model of moral self. The model describes a "feedback loop" recursively connecting one's morally relevant actions to the perceived assessment of oneself in moral terms and consequent emotions, which can motivate the agent to change their behavior.

In terms of methodological background, our assessment of moral self-evaluation relies on the repertory grids technique (Kelly, 1955) which was developed to capture personal construct systems, formed and updated as a result of constant interactions with the environment and allowing one to classify, evaluate and predict events. The technique uses an explicit comparison procedure

in order to extract individual constructs using "elements" that are relevant to a specific area, that is, objects of assessment - personalities, situations, etc. (Bell, Bannister and Fransella, 2004). Thus, it produces a measure based on indirect assessment: the deviations of ideas about one's moral qualities from a personal or socially accepted ideal are calculated by the researcher from respondents' separate ratings, instead of relying on a direct subjective assessment. It helps to reduce the measurement error associated with self-enhancement bias. Moreover, it yields a measurement tool which is perfectly designed to account for several reference standards against which one evaluates oneself as a moral object.

To test our main hypothesis, taking into account several reference standards and potential alternative mediators, parallel mediation analysis is employed (Hayes, 2018). Parallel multiple mediator model presupposes that the predictor variable influences the outcome variable directly, as well as indirectly, through two or more mediators, under condition that no mediator causally influences another. This allows us not only to test the significance and the direction of the path while controlling for other relevant mediators, but also to explore the potential conflicts between them, resulting in a null total effect. To further explore the role of social context in this relationship, we operationalize prosocial behavior as a helping action towards close and distant others, suggesting specific hypotheses for each type of prosocial action. Finally, we also test for the linearity of the relationship between the moral self-evaluation and subjective well-being, expecting that there could be a saturation point after which the marginal effects on happiness could decline (Hitlin, 2008).

The main results of the dissertation include: 1. Stable and situational moral self-evaluations are two analytically and empirically distinct phenomena. While both are the results of matching the perceptions of actual self with

internal standards, the stable moral self-evaluation remains relatively constant across time and situations, and the latter is produced at a particular moment in time in a particular context. The two aspects of moral self-evaluation have diverging predictors and outcomes.

2. Applying repertory grid technique to measure stable moral self-evaluation returns valid and reliable results, which are less sensitive to self-enhancement bias, compared to direct assessment, and have higher ecological validity.

3. Stable moral self-evaluation, measured as the discrepancy between real self and social expectations, shows higher convergent and discriminant validity compared to real-ideal discrepancy. These findings highlight the primate of social norm over personal ideal in making specifically moral self-judgments.

4. Stable moral self-evaluation mediates the relationships between life satisfaction and frequent prosocial behavior, but the direct mechanism depends on the relationship closeness to the beneficiary. The positive effect of helping a stranger on life satisfaction is fully accounted for by moral self-evaluation, regardless of the reference standard, while helping close others acts only through lowering the discrepancy between the assessment of one's moral qualities and perceived societal expectations.

5. Situational moral self-evaluation, resulting from a helping act towards both close and distant others, is a significant predictor of event-level subjective well-being, but only when perceived impact is held constant.

The key scientific contributions to the field are as follows:

1. The dissertation introduces an original conception of moral self-evaluation as possessing both stable and situational aspects. Their separate empirical analysis allows us to test

whether they constitute one multidimensional construct or empirically independent evaluative mechanisms. This is an important addition to the existing models of moral self (Stets and Carter, 2010), which focus on fast reactions and moral emotions while leaving out the importance of slow deliberative cognitive processes in forming enduring self-judgments and self-narratives.

2. The critical analysis of existing conceptualizations and empirical evidence regarding moral self-evaluation resulted in an integrative theoretical model of predictors and outcomes of the construct which highlights the important part of social factors in its formation.

3. A novel scale of stable moral self-evaluation is developed which uses indirect measurement and a larger - compared to previous measures - culture-specific set of moral characteristics generated by Russian speaking participants. This measure increases the validity of the moral assessment due to a wider set of relevant criteria, e.g., those covering relations to in-group and respect for hierarchy (Graham et al., 2012).

4. Operationalizing prosocial behavior via helping close and distant others not only contributes to the further understanding of their differential unmediated effects on subjective well-being, but also clarifies the potentially distinct roles that moral self-evaluation plays in these mechanisms. This allows sociologists to get a more precise idea about one of the internal mechanisms sustaining social order (Parsons and Shills, 1951) as well as about the assessment of the moral worth of a prosocial act depending on social obligations towards the recipient (Deviatko, Bykov, 2021).

5. To our knowledge, the dissertation contains the first experimental test of the effect of prosocial behavior on subjective well-being in the Russian cultural context. This helps to elaborate the results of cross-sectional studies in the region (e.g. "Happy people are ...",

2018) in terms of the directions of the causality while further extending the research beyond

WEIRD samples (Henrich, Heine and Norenzayan, 2010).

The dissertation results were presented in the following articles:

Nastina E. Deviatko I.F. (2023) Different Paths to Happiness: The Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfactions in Benefiting Close and Distant Others. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. No. 0. P. 1-24.

Nastina E. A. (2022) Moderators of the Link between Prosocial Behavior and Life Satisfaction. Sociological Journal. Vol. 28. No. 3. P. 57-71 (In Russ.)

Nastina E. A., Deviatko I. F. (2021) Moral Self-Evaluation: Developing and Validating Methodology for Russian-Speaking Populations. Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 2. P. 4-27. (In Russ.)

Nastina E. A. (2020) Conceptualization and Measurement of Moral Self-Evaluation in Social Sciences: Analytical Review. Sociology: methodology, methods, mathematical modeling. No. 50-51. P. 7-36. (In Russ.)

The results were also discussed at the conference session "Subjective well-being in Russia and its regions" of the VI All-Russian Sociological Congress in 2021 and international ESRA conference in 2023. Additionally, they were presented in an expert opinion in a monthly analytical issue SocioDigger by VCIOM in 2021 and at the regular seminars of Ronald F. Inglehart Laboratory for Comparative Social Research, HSE, Moscow and Morality Lab, University of Toronto.

Заключение диссертации по теме «Другие cпециальности», Настина Екатерина Александровна

CONCLUSION

Theoretical and practical implications

In this dissertation, we aimed to test the mediation potential of moral self-evaluation in the relationship between subjective well-being and prosocial behavior using a wide range of measures to assess the key constructs. Thus, several measures of moral self-evaluation were developed or adapted and evaluated. We started off with an assumption that repertory grid technique which uses relevant aspects of self and respondent-chosen reference figures for construct generation should yield more accurate relevant assessment criteria compared to enumeration or a priori selection by the researcher. Moreover, indirect assessment was expected to reduce the self-enhancement bias, compared to direct assessment applied in already existing measures.

Indeed, the idiographic and conventional versions of the developed here Moral Constructs Scale, which were used to measure stable moral self-evaluation, showed adequate validity and reliability. The idiographic measure allows participants to make a reflective assessment according to the most relevant moral criteria, yet it is highly cognitively demanding, time consuming and raises questions about the ratings comparability, therefore it should be preferred when systematic differences in the content and complexity of moral subsystems of different groups are in question and can be combined with subsequent qualitative interviews with participants. For instance, the use of this measure may be beneficial if one aims to provide more evidence in terms of the set of moral criteria applied to evaluate oneself by people with different social standing (Lamont, 1992; Sayer, 2012). Changing objects of evaluation, researchers can also study across which lines people draw social boundaries between themselves and representatives of different outgroups, e.g., migrants or representatives of another ethnicity or religion (Firat et al., 2018; Lamont, 2000).

The conventional version of MCS was assessed by respondents as less complex and requires less time, which makes it more suitable for application in surveys, while the use of most

often generated assessment criteria contribute to higher specificity of the measure. It was also preliminary proven to provide more self-critical results compared to previous measures (Jordan et al., 2015), thus reducing self-enhancement bias. Importantly, stable moral self-evaluation measured as the discrepancy between real and ought selves showed higher criterion and discriminant validity compared to real-ideal discrepancy. In particular, the former was less closely associated with global self-esteem and more closely with the confidence and compliance with one's moral standards. These findings highlight the primate of societal over personal ideal in making specifically moral self-judgments and parallel Mead's idea that "[i]t is in the form of the generalized other [...] that the community exercises control over the conduct of its individual members; for it is in this form that the social process or community enters as a determining factor into the individual's thinking" (1934, p. 154).

Another feature of MCS-C is the applicability of its content for Russian-speaking samples. The existing scales of related constructs - including MSI (Jordan et al., 2015) and identity standard (Stets and Carter, 2012) measures - rely on a set of moral criteria elicited from business students from the US using a simpler listing procedure (Aquino and Reed, 2002). However, this set is hardly exhaustive, representing a rather narrow concept of morality limited to the questions of justice and care. Many studies show that there is a considerable variation in what counts as morality both between and within societies (Graham et al., 2011), and an accurate measure of moral self-evaluation should reflect it. While Miles and Upenieks (2018) aimed to handle this problem by creating a scale grounded in Moral Foundation Theory, we derived the items empirically. Not only does it result in a more valid measurement of the concept (due to the inclusion of the characteristics covering relations to in-group and hierarchy), but also allows to further the nascent research of basic criteria of ethical judgment in Russia (Vinogradov, Larichev, 2022).

The analytical differentiation between two types of moral self-evaluation, stable and situational, and the application of separate measures for them allowed to test whether they could be regarded as empirically distinct constructs. This is an important addition to the existing models of moral self (Stets and Carter, 2010), which focus on fast reactions and moral emotions while leaving out the importance of slow deliberative cognitive processes in forming enduring self-judgments and self-narratives. In our work, it was shown that the two aspects are statistically unrelated and show diverging patterns of relations to the outcome of interest, subjective well-being. Thus, stable moral self-evaluation, measured as real-ideal and real-ought self-discrepancies, was shown to correlate moderately with life satisfaction (ravg = -0.35), while situational moral self-evaluation showed no significant relationship with life satisfaction, yet was linked strongly to event-level well-being. Additionally, the situational moral self-evaluation is linearly related to event-level well-being while life satisfaction is differently influenced by discrepancies at different levels of the latter.

In a series of mediation models, we demonstrated that the observed relationship patterns are the result of moral - namely prosocial - behavior rather than an overall self-positivity bias enhancing both one's moral self-perception and assessment of one's life regardless the objective conduct and conditions. It was shown that in the case of both stable and event-specific measures the paths leading from helping others to happiness through moral self-evaluation were significant with the standardized indirect effect estimate ranging from p = 0.13 to 0.19. These findings shed light on the internal mechanisms sustaining social order (Parsons and Shills, 1951) and the role of reflexive and constantly (re)constructed self in this process in Late Modern Society (Giddens, 1991).

We also find that the exact patterns of relationships differ depending on the relationship closeness to the beneficiary. Thus, helping close others frequently produces higher life satisfaction through closing the gap between the perception of one's own morality and societal, yet not personal, ideal, while leaving space for other mediating mechanisms. Recent acts of helping family and friends increase the overall enjoyment of the moment through moral self-evaluation and the sense of belonging to the same extent. In turn, the effect of frequently helping strangers on life satisfaction is fully explained by bringing one's real moral self-evaluation closer to both social and personal ideals, and the moment of helping act is enjoyed primarily due to the feeling one's own moral goodness. This finding contributes to the literature exploring how the relationship with the benefactor affects the moral worth of a prosocial act (McManus, Kleiman-Weiner and Young, 2020; Deviatko and Bykov, 2021) by bringing the first-person (vs third-person) judgment into the picture. Namely, it is demonstrated that helping, both close and distant others, has moral worth in the eyes of the doer, but it in the former case (helping family and friends), this worth is largely due to conforming with the perceived external obligations. Moreover, the absence of the differences in the well-being outcomes in case of helping different recipients confirms that the map of moral behavior favored by evolution and yielding psychological rewards extends beyond mutualism and kin altruism (Curry et al., 2018).

Finally, it is important to mention that the confirmation or rejection of our main hypothesis about the mediation potential of the moral self-evaluation was conditional on replicating the relationship between prosocial behavior and happiness, which, to our knowledge, had not been tested in Russia before. While in regard to more enduring, cumulative constructs the link manifested itself unconditionally, helping others in the moment did not result in higher satisfaction unless the helpers felt capable and efficient in contributing to the well-being of others. This result

goes in line with those of other studies showing that the perception of one's positive impact is an important condition of receiving emotional benefits from a prosocial action (Aknin et al, 2013) and contradicts the "warm glow" hypothesis which states that effectiveness of a kind act is irrelevant for the positive emotional response (Andreoni, 1990).

While the modern science of morality is crucially an interdisciplinary endeavor, benefitting from the cross-fertilization of different fields and traditions (Bykov 2019; Simonova, 2014), we attempted to approach our research question from a sociological angle. The current dissertation contributes to the project of the new sociology of morality (Hiltin and Vaisey, 2013) by exploring the social processes shaping a morally relevant construct and engaging with data about practices and experiences in natural settings thus increasing the ecological validity of the findings.

Limitations and Future directions

While the dissertation attempted to provide a complex and multifold analysis of the phenomena in question and the relationships between them, there are still certain limitation which could be addressed in future research on the topic. To begin with, despite all the listed advantages of the developed Moral Construct Scale, it remains cognitively demanding. Even the much-simplified conventional version including only three objects of assessment turned to be rather tiring for respondents which resulted in a significant amount of straightlining in grids completion. We suggest that the measures should yield high quality results when used in face-to-face interviews but should be shortened even further when applied in online or telephone settings. An additional challenge is to test whether the constructs generated by students provide a comprehensive list of moral qualities relevant to a larger population. While, as mentioned above, MCS-C covers a broader range of moral characteristics compared to the previously developed scales, it may still ignore traits that are important for other socio-demographic groups, such as

those linked to faith and religion. The construct elicitation procedure could be complicated for more heterogeneous samples, so, in future studies, the provided list of adjectives can be used as stimuli material for further assessment in terms of its moral relevance to them with leaving on opportunity to suggest new items.

Additional challenge appears if the conventional version of MCS is to be applied in comparative research covering diverse linguistic and cultural settings, which we believe to be a promising direction for future research. The measure was developed to reflect the moral constructs, readily available when making self and other-related valenced judgments in a particular context, but in other settings the set of these criteria is likely to vary (e.g. see differences in freelisted moral traits between Brazilian, German, New Zealand and Filipino samples (Vauclair et al., 2014)). In this case, the researcher is presented with a dilemma whether to focus on the functional or formal linguistic equivalence (Andreenkova, 2011), that is to elicit the culturally relevant moral characteristics using MCS-I or translate the measure directly to ensure the exact match of the content. One of potential solutions could be to collect the data and conduct analyses using culture-specific scales and then compare the results by reducing the number of the criteria to the common core, as we did in Study 4. However, the final decision should be made by a research team depending on the specific goals of the project.

In turn, the measure of situational moral self-evaluation validated in the study is not particularly challenging for respondents, yet it provides the researcher with much less information. Importantly, the reference standard suggested by the wordings refers to personal, but not social ideal. It would be particularly interesting to complement such momentary self-assessment with explicit reference to the perception of one's moral worth in the eyes of others, since in case of stable moral self-evaluation the reference standard influenced its relationships with behavior and

happiness significantly. Additionally, although the measure showed high validity and internal consistency, the results are mixed in terms of its responsiveness to recent moral behavior. This inconsistent pattern requires further investigation using a variety of control conditions.

Further, we could not unconditionally replicate the causal relationship between benefitting others and subjective well-being. In case of the more dynamic aspects of it, the link manifested itself only for perceiving one's experience as pleasurable and only provided that the sense that one exerts a meaningful effect on the outer world is taken into account. At the same time, the prosocial acts respondents choose to report were found to differ systematically in how impactful they were depending on the recipient. While holding doors and helping with heavy bags likely took place in the lives of those helping strong ties during the recall period or intervention week, they did not mention it, probably, regarding it a matter of course which did not make a big difference. For those helping strangers, these were the most commonly mentioned acts, and, indeed, there is rarely a chance to do something more substantial. We suggest that future research comparing the effects of helping close vs distant others should directly assess the self-perceived impact of the act on a beneficiary to better understand the nature of potential differences.

At the same time, weekly positive and negative affect did not differ between prosocial actors and those who were busy with their everyday routine either. Due to a higher-than-expected non-compliance rate, our analysis could be underpowered, yet, given close to negligible effect sizes, we may still consider alternative explanations. On the one hand, the null effect could point towards the gaining recognition fact that kindness interventions, which assign people to a certain activity condition without their full-fledged intentional involvement, in general, are less likely to induce subjective well-being because participants may not find their assignment desirable or believe in its efficacy (Sheldon & Lyubomirsky, 2019). Alternatively, it may be characteristic of interdependent

cultures in which the focus of a helping act is placed on duty and norm compliance rather than personal choice (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Shin et al., 2020). Thus, when analyzing the content of open questions responses, we discovered that some participants were critical of the idea that one should feel good or praise oneself for helping someone else, since it invalidates the purity of intention. As one of the respondents put it in the comment section: "Treat others the way you want to be treated and 'good deeds' will not be something special, they will not need to be done to feel proud.These observations point towards internal emotional regulation employed when a prosocial act is being committed, associated with corresponding emotional imperatives, i.e., the norms of which emotions should be experienced in a certain situation, varying from culture to culture (Simonova, 2021). Further research directly comparing samples across multiple cultures is needed to test this proposition.

Speaking of the more enduring aspect of subjective well-being, life satisfaction, it has been shown to be insensitive to one-shot experimental manipulation, which provides evidence for the content validity of the measure yet makes the quest for the direction of causation more complicated. Indeed, while we themed our argument around the lasting subjective benefits of frequent prosocial behavior, it could be the opposite: happier people may be more likely to help others. Some studies imply that the relationship in question may be reciprocal: helping behavior creates a positive feedback loop with resulting happiness stimulating new kind acts (Aknin, Dunn and Norton, 2012). A longer kindness intervention spanning several weeks or even months could provide further evidence in this regard, while complementing it with the measures of moral self-evaluation would additionally allow to analyze to what extent its situational aspect contributes to the stable. However, it remains extremely challenging to keep participants motivated and avoid self-selection and attrition for the longer-term experimental designs.

Finally, we demonstrated that the nature of the relationship between prosocial behavior and subjective well-being can be significantly affected by socially determined factors such as relationship closeness to the beneficiary and reference standard. However, as indicated in our theoretical overview, there still remain a number of important moderators to be considered including values and identities. Thus, in one of the papers on the topic, using cross-section data we found that those who prioritize equality, tolerance, and justice reap less satisfaction with life from frequently helping others compared to their less universalistic counterparts12. Combined with the role of moral self-evaluation in an experimental design, it could provide valuable material for moderated mediation analysis deepening our understanding of the mechanisms of cooperation and non-aversive social control.

12 Full coverage of this material can be found in Nastina E. A. (2022) Moderators of the Link between Prosocial Behavior and Life Satisfaction. Sociological Journal. Vol. 28. No. 3. (In Russ.)

Список литературы диссертационного исследования кандидат наук Настина Екатерина Александровна, 2023 год

REFERENCES

1. Adler, N.E. et al. (2000) 'Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women', Health Psychology, 19(6), pp. 586-592. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.19.6.586.

2. Aknin, L.B. et al. (2011) 'It's the Recipient That Counts: Spending Money on Strong Social Ties Leads to Greater Happiness than Spending on Weak Social Ties', PLOS ONE, 6(2), p. e17018. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0017018.

3. Aknin, L.B. et al. (2013) 'Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a psychological universal', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(4), pp. 635-652. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031578.

4. Aknin, L.B. et al. (2019) 'Happiness and prosocial behavior: An evaluation of the evidence', World Happiness Report 2019 [Preprint].

5. Aknin, L.B. et al. (2020) 'Does spending money on others promote happiness?: A registered replication report.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 119(2), p. e15. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000191.

6. Aknin, L.B., Dunn, E.W. and Norton, M.I. (2012) 'Happiness Runs in a Circular Motion: Evidence for a Positive Feedback Loop between Prosocial Spending and Happiness', Journal of Happiness Studies, 13(2), pp. 347-355. Available at: https://doi .org/10.1007/s10902-011-9267-5.

7. Aknin, L.B., Hamlin, J.K. and Dunn, E.W. (2012) 'Giving leads to happiness in young children', PloS One, 7(6), p. e39211. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0039211.

8. Andreenkova A.V. (2011) 'Cross-country comparative studies in social sciences: methodology, stages of development, current state', The World of Russia, 3, pp. 125154. (In Russ.)

9. Andreoni, J. (1990) 'Impure Altruism and Donations to Public Goods: A Theory of Warm-Glow Giving', The Economic Journal, 100(401), pp. 464-477. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/2234133.

10. Andreoni, J., Rao, J.M. and Trachtman, H. (2017) 'Avoiding the Ask: A Field Experiment on Altruism, Empathy, and Charitable Giving', Journal of Political Economy, 125(3), pp. 625-653. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/691703.

11. Andrews, F.M. and Withey, S.B. (1976) Social Indicators of Well-Being: Americans' Perceptions of Life Quality. Boston, MA: Springer US. Available at: https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781468422559.

12. Annas, J. (1995) The Morality of Happiness. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press.

13. Annas, J. (2004) 'Happiness as achievement', Daedalus, 133(2), pp. 44-51. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1162/001152604323049389.

14. Aquino, K. and Reed, A., II (2002) 'The self-importance of moral identity.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), pp. 1423-1440. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423.

15. Argyle, M. (2013) The Psychology of Happiness. Routledge. Available at: https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315812212.

16. Arthaud-day, M L. et al. (2005) 'The Subjective Well-being Construct: A Test of its Convergent, Discriminant, and Factorial Validity', Social Indicators Research, 74(3), pp. 445-476. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-004-8209-6.

17. Abend, G. (2014) The Moral Background: An Inquiry into the History of Business Ethics. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

18. Bandura, A. (1999) 'Moral Disengagement in the Perpetration of Inhumanities', Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3(3), pp. 193-209. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3.

19. Batson, C D. and Powell, A.A. (2003) 'Altruism and Prosocial Behavior', in Handbook of Psychology. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp. 463-484. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/0471264385.wei0519.

20. Bell, R., Bannister, D. and Fransella, F. (2004) A Manual for Repertory Grid Technique. John Wiley & Sons.

21. Bentham, J. (1996) An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Oxford : New York: Clarendon Press.

22. Biswas-Diener, R. and Diener, E. (2001) 'Making the Best of a Bad Situation: Satisfaction in the Slums of Calcutta', Social Indicators Research, 55(3), pp. 329352. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010905029386.

23. Blasi, A. (1983) 'Moral cognition and moral action: A theoretical perspective', Developmental Review, 3(2), pp. 178-210. Available at:

https://doi .org/10.1016/0273 -2297(83)90029-1.

24. Blasi, A. (1984) 'Moral identity: Its role in moral functioning', in Kurtines, W. M. and Gewirtz, J. L., Morality, moral behavior, and moral development. New York: Wiley, pp. 128-139.

25. Bloomfield, P. (2014) The virtues of happiness: a theory of the good life. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

26. Boyd, R. and Richerson, P.J. (2009) 'Culture and the evolution of human cooperation', Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1533), pp. 3281-3288. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2009.0134.

27. Bracken, B.A. and Barona, A. (1991) 'State of the art procedures for translating, validating and using psychoeducational tests in cross-cultural assessment', School Psychology International, 12, pp. 119-132. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034391121010.

28. Brown, J.D., Dutton, K.A. and Cook, K.E. (2001) 'From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation', Cognition and Emotion, 15(5), pp. 615-631. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/02699930126063.

29. Brown, K.M., Hoye, R. and Nicholson, M. (2012) 'Self-Esteem, Self-Efficacy, and Social Connectedness as Mediators of the Relationship Between Volunteering and Well-Being', Journal of Social Service Research, 38(4), pp. 468-483. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01488376.2012.687706.

30. Burke, P.J. and Stets, J.E. (2009) Identity theory. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press.

31. Campbell, A. (1981) The sense of well-being in America: recent patterns and trends. McGraw-Hill.

32. Bykov, A. (2019). 'Rediscovering the Moral: The "Old" and "New" Sociology of Morality in the Context of the Behavioural Sciences'. Sociology, 53(1), 192-207. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038518783967

33. Campbell, A., Converse, P.E. and Rodgers, W.L. (1976) The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions. New York, NY, US: Russell Sage Foundation (The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations, and satisfactions).

34. Cast, A. and Stets, J. (2016) 'The Self, in, pp. 343-365. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-32250-6_17.

35. Chen, S.X. et al. (2006) 'Going beyond self-esteem to predict life satisfaction: The Chinese case', Asian Journal Of Social Psychology, 9(1), pp. 24-35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j .1467-839X.2006.00182.x.

36. Cieslik, M. (2015) '"Not Smiling but Frowning": Sociology and the "Problem of Happiness"', Sociology, 49(3), pp. 422-437. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0038038514543297.

37. Cooley, C.H. (1902) Human nature and the social order. New York: Scribner's (Human nature and the social order).

38. Coopersmith, S. (1981) Manual of the Coopersmith Self-esteem Inventory. Palo ALto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

39. Cummins, R.A. (2003) 'Normative Life Satisfaction: Measurement Issues and a Homeostatic Model', Social Indicators Research, 64, pp. 225-256.

40. Curry, O.S. et al. (2018) 'Happy to help? A systematic review and meta-analysis of the effects of performing acts of kindness on the well-being of the actor', Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 76, pp. 320-329. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjesp.2018.02.014.

41. Curry, O.S., Jones Chesters, M. and Van Lissa, C.J. (2019) 'Mapping morality with a compass: Testing the theory of "morality-as-cooperation" with a new questionnaire', Journal of Research in Personality, 78, pp. 106-124. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjrp.2018.10.008.

42. Curry, O.S., Mullins, D A. and Whitehouse, H. (2019) 'Is It Good to Cooperate?: Testing the Theory of Morality-as-Cooperation in 60 Societies', Current Anthropology, 60(1), pp. 47-69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/701478.

43. Darwin, C., Bonner, J.T. and May, R.M. (1981) The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press.

44. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2000) 'The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior', Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), p. 227. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

45. Deci, E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (2008) 'Hedonia, eudaimonia, and well-being: an introduction', Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), pp. 1-11. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9018-1.

46. Deutsch, M. (1990) 'Psychological roots of moral exclusion', Journal of Social Issues, 46(1), pp. 21-25. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00269.x.

47. Deviatko, I.F. and Bykov, A. (2021) 'Weighing the moral worth of altruistic actions: A discrepancy between moral evaluations and prescriptive judgments', Philosophical

Psychology, 35(1), pp. 95-121. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2021.1950666.

48. Devyatko, I. F. (1998). Methods of sociological research. Yekaterinburg: Ural University Publishing House. (In Russ.)

49. Diener, E. (1984) Subjective Well-Being. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2162125. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2162125.

50. Diener, E. et al. (1985) 'The Satisfaction With Life Scale', Journal of Personality Assessment, 49(1), pp. 71-75. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4901_13.

51. Diener, E. et al. (2009) 'New Measures of Well-Being', in E. Diener (ed.) Assessing Well-Being. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (Social Indicators Research Series), pp. 247-266. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2354-4_12.

52. Diener, E. (ed.) (2009) The Science of Well-Being. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (Social Indicators Research Series). Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-481-2350-6.

53. Diener, E. et al. (2010) 'Wealth and happiness across the world: Material prosperity predicts life evaluation, whereas psychosocial prosperity predicts positive feeling', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, pp. 52-61. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018066.

54. Diener, E. and Diener, M. (1995) 'Cross-cultural correlates of life satisfaction and self-esteem', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), pp. 653-663. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.68.4.653.

55. Diener, E., Napa Scollon, C. and Lucas, R.E. (2009) 'The Evolving Concept of Subjective Well-Being: The Multifaceted Nature of Happiness', in E. Diener (ed.) Assessing Well-Being: The Collected Works of Ed Diener. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands (Social Indicators Research Series), pp. 67-100. Available at: https://doi .org/10.1007/978-90-481 -2354-4_4.

56. Durkheim, E. (1973) Moral Education. Simon and Schuster.

57. Durkheim, E. (1974) Sociology and Philosophy. Simon and Schuster.

58. Eggleston, B. (2013) 'Paradox of Happiness', in H. Lafollette (ed.) International Encyclopedia of Ethics. Oxford, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444367072.wbiee202.

59. Eid, M. and Diener, E. (2004) 'Global judgments of subjective well-being: Situational variability and long-term stability', Social Indicators Research, 65, pp. 245-277. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SOCI.0000003801.89195.bc.

60. Evans, J.St.B.T. and Stanovich, K.E. (2013) 'Dual-Process Theories of Higher Cognition: Advancing the Debate', Perspectives on Psychological Science, 8(3), pp. 223-241. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691612460685.

61. Firat, R. B., Kwon H.W., Hitlin, S. (2018) 'A Novel Measure of Moral Boundaries: Testing Perceived In-Group/Out-Group Value Differences in a Midwestern Sample' Socius. Available at: doi:10.1177/2378023118818741.

62. Fritz, M.M. et al. (2021) 'Kindness and cellular aging: A pre-registered experiment testing the effects of prosocial behavior on telomere length and well-being', Brain, Behavior, & Immunity - Health, 11, p. 100187. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.bbih.2020.100187.

63. Fromm, E. (2013) To Have or To Be? Reprint edition. London ; New York: Bloomsbury Academic.

64. Giddens, A. (1991) Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age. Stanford University Press.

65. Gorski, P.S. (2017) 'Recovered Goods: Durkheimian Sociology as Virtue Ethics', in D. Carr, J. Arthur, and K. Kristjansson (eds) Varieties of Virtue Ethics. London: Palgrave Macmillan UK, pp. 181-198. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59177-7_11.

66. Gough, H.G. and Heilbrun, A.B. (1983) The Adjective Check List Manual. Consulting Psychologists Press.

67. Graham, J. et al. (2011) 'Mapping the Moral Domain', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 101(2), pp. 366-85. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021847.

68. Graham, J. et al. (2012) Moral Foundations Theory: The Pragmatic Validity of Moral Pluralism. SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 2184440. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2184440

69. Hamilton, W.D. (1964) 'The genetical evolution of social behaviour. I', Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7(1), pp. 1-16. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4.

70. 'Happy people are more likely to do charity work' (2018), Public Opinion Foundation. Available at:

https://fom.ru/uploads/files/Research_Happiness_and_charity.pdf (accessed: 03.03.2022). (In Russ.)

71. Harbaugh, W.T., Mayr, U. and Burghart, D.R. (2007) 'Neural responses to taxation and voluntary giving reveal motives for charitable donations', Science (New York, N.Y.), 316(5831), pp. 1622-1625. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1140738.

72. Hardy, S.A. and Carlo, G. (2011) 'Moral Identity', in S.J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, and V.L. Vignoles (eds) Handbook of Identity Theory and Research. New York, NY: Springer, pp. 495-513. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4419-7988-9_19.

73. Harkness, J. (2011) Translation In: Guidelines for Best Practice in Cross-Cultural Surveys. Full Guidelines. 3rd ed. Ann Arbor: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

74. Hart, D., Atkins, R. and Ford, D. (2010) 'Urban America as a Context for the Development of Moral Identity in Adolescence', Journal of Social Issues, 54(3), pp. 513-530. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1998.tb01233.x.

75. Haybron, D. (2007) 'Life satisfaction, ethical reflection, and the science of happiness', Journal of Happiness Studies, 8(1), pp. 99-138. Available at: https://doi .org/10.1007/s10902-006-9006-5.

76. Hayes, A.F. (2018) Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis, Second Edition: A Regression-Based Approach. Second edition. New York: The Guilford Press.

77. Headey, B. (1981) 'The quality of life in Australia', Social Indicators Research, 9(2), pp. 155-181. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00286195.

78. Heine, S.J. etal. (1999) 'Is there a universal need for positive self-regard?', Psychological Review, 106(4), p. 766. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.106.4.766.

79. Henrich, J., Heine, S.J. and Norenzayan, A. (2010) 'The weirdest people in the world?', Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33(2-3), pp. 61-83. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X0999152X.

80. Higgins, E.T. (1987) 'Self-discrepancy: a theory relating self and affect.', Psychological review, 94(3), pp. 319-340. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319.

81. Hitlin, S. (2007) 'Doing good, feeling good: Values and the self 's moral center', The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2(4), pp. 249-259. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760701552352.

82. Hitlin, S. (2008) Moral selves, evil selves: the social psychology of conscience. 1. publ. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

83. Hofstede, G., Hofstede G.J., Minkov, M. (2010) Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind; Intercultural Cooperation and Its Importance for Survival. Rev. and Expanded 3. ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.

84. Hoorens, V. (2014) 'Positivity Bias', in A.C. Michalos (ed.) Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 4938-4941. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-0753-5_2219.

85. Hui, B.P.H. et al. (2020) 'Rewards of kindness? A meta-analysis of the link between prosociality and well-being.', Psychological Bulletin, 146(12), p. 1084. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000298.

86. Hui, B.P.H. and Kogan, A. (2018) 'Daily Ups and Downs: An Event-Sampling Study of the Mediated Moderation of Prosocial Engagement on Well-Being', Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), pp. 675-688. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617722197.

87. James, W. (1878) 'Remarks on Spencer's definition of mind as correspondence', The Journal of Speculative Philosophy, 12(1), pp. 1-18.

88. James, W. (1950) The Principles of Psychology, Vol. 1. Revised ed. edition. New York: Dover Publications.

89. Jeffries, V. (2012) 'The sociology of the good and the concept of virtue', in N. Pokrovsky and D. Efremenko (eds) Sociological Yearbook 2011. Moscow: INION: RAS, pp. 265-287. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/the-sociology-of-the-good-and-the-concept-of-virtue.

90. Jennings, P L., Mitchell, M.S. and Hannah, S T. (2015) 'The moral self: A review and integration of the literature', Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(S1), pp. S104-S168. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1002/job.1919.

91. Jordan, J., Leliveld, M.C. and Tenbrunsel, A.E. (2015) 'The Moral Self-Image Scale: Measuring and Understanding the Malleability of the Moral Self, Frontiers in Psychology, 6. Available at: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01878.

92. Kahneman, D. (1999) 'Objective happiness', Well-being: The foundations of hedonic psychology, 3(25), pp. 1-23.

93. Kelly, G. (1955) The Psychology of Personal Constructs (2 vol). New York: Norton.

94. Kholodkova O. G. (2009) Personal moral self-rating among pupils in elementary school. Tomsk State Pedagogical University Bulletin, 7 (85), pp. 76-78. (In Russ.)

95. Kislyakov P. A., Shmeleva E. A. (2020) 'Prosocial behavior and psychological well-being of students', in Psychology of Education: Modern Vector of Development. Ekaterinburg: Ural Federal University. pp. 491-507. (In Russian)

96. Ko, K. et al. (2021) 'Comparing the effects of performing and recalling acts of kindness', The Journal of Positive Psychology, 16(1), pp. 73-81. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1663252.

97. Krueger, A.B. and Schkade, D.A. (2008) 'The reliability of subjective well-being measures', Journal of Public Economics, 92(8), pp. 1833-1845. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjpubeco.2007.12.015.

98. Krueger, A.B. and Stone, A.A. (2014) 'Measuring Subjective Wellbeing: Progress and Challenges', Science (New York, N.Y.), 346(6205), pp. 42-43. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1256392.

99. Krys, K. et al. (2019) 'Putting the "We" Into Well-being: Using Collectivism-Themed Measures of Well-Being Attenuates Well-being's Association With Individualism', Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 22(3), pp. 256-267. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.12364.

100. Krys, K. et al. (2020) 'Personal Life Satisfaction as a Measure of Societal Happiness is an Individualistic Presumption: Evidence from Fifty Countries', Journal of Happiness Studies [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00311-y.

101. Kumar, S. et al. (2012) 'Social support, volunteering and health around the world: Cross-national evidence from 139 countries', Social Science & Medicine, 74(5), pp. 696-706. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.11.017.

102. Kwan, V.S.Y., Bond, M.H. and Singelis, T.M. (1997) 'Pancultural explanations for life satisfaction: Adding relationship harmony to self-esteem.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), pp. 1038-1051. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1038.

103. Lachowicz-Tabaczek, K. and Sniecinska, J. (2011) 'Self-concept and self-esteem: How the content of the self-concept reveals sources and functions of self-esteem', Polish Psychological Bulletin, 42(1), pp. 24-35. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2478/v10059-011-0005-y.

104. Lamont, M. (1992) Money, Morals, and Manners. The Culture of the French and the American Upper-Middle Class. University of Chicago Press: Chicago

105. Lamont, M. (2000). The Dignity of Working Men: Morality and the Boundaries of Race, Class, and Immigration. Harvard University Press. Available at:

https: //doi .org/10.2307/j.ctvk12rpt

106. Leary, M.R. and Baumeister, R.F. (2000) 'The nature and function of self-esteem: Sociometer theory', in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press, pp. 1-62. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(00)80003-9.

107. Leontiev, D.A. (2020) 'Happiness and Well-Being: Toward the Construction of the Conceptual Field', Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal (Public Opinion Monitoring), (1), p. 14—37. Available at: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2020.1.02.

108. Lipsey, M.W. and Wilson, D.B. (2001) Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc (Practical meta-analysis), pp. ix, 247.

109. Lu, X. (2012) Moral Self-Esteem Enhancement:

110. Lucas, R.E., Freedman, V.A. and Cornman, J.C. (2018) 'The Short-Term Stability of Life Satisfaction Judgments', Emotion, 18(7), pp. 1024-1031. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000357.

111. Luks, A. and Payne, P. (2001) The Healing Power of Doing Good. iUniverse.

112. Lyubomirsky, S., Sheldon, K.M. and Schkade, D. (2005) 'Pursuing Happiness: The Architecture of Sustainable Change', Review of General Psychology, 9(2), pp. 111— 131. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680.9.2.111.

113. Marcuse, H. and Kellner, D. (1991) One-Dimensional Man: Studies in the Ideology of Advanced Industrial Society, 2nd Edition. 2nd edition. Boston: Beacon Press.

114. Martela, F. and Sheldon, K.M. (2019) 'Clarifying the Concept of Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfaction as the Common Core Connecting Eudaimonic and Subjective Well-Being', Review of General Psychology, 23(4), pp. 458—474. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1089268019880886.

115. McManus, R.M., Kleiman-Weiner, M. and Young, L. (2020) 'What We Owe to Family: The Impact of Special Obligations on Moral Judgment', Psychological Science, 31(3), pp. 227—242. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619900321.

116. Mead, G.H. (1934) Mind, Self, and Society from the Standpoint of a Social Behaviorist. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

117. Meier, S. and Stutzer, A. (2008) 'Is Volunteering Rewarding in Itself?', Economica, 75(297), pp. 39—59. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00597.x.

118. Mellor, D. et al. (2008) 'Volunteering and Well-Being: Do Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Perceived Control Mediate the Relationship?', Journal of Social Service

Research, 34(4), pp. 61-70. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/01488370802162483.

119. Merritt, A.C., Effron, D.A. and Monin, B. (2010) 'Moral Self-Licensing: When Being Good Frees Us to Be Bad', Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4(5), pp. 344-357. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x.

120. Miles, A. et al. (2022) 'Using prosocial behavior to safeguard mental health and foster emotional well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: A registered report of a randomized trial', PLOS ONE. Edited by F. Martela, 17(7), p. e0272152. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272152.

121. Miles, A. and Upenieks, L. (2018) 'An expanded model of the moral self: Beyond care and justice', Social Science Research, 72, pp. 1-19. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016Zj.ssresearch.2018.02.004.

122. Miles, A. and Upenieks, L. (2020) 'Moral Self-Appraisals Explain Emotional Rewards of Prosocial Behavior', Submitted manuscript [Preprint].

123. Miles, A. and Upenieks, L. (2021) 'Moral Self-Appraisals Explain Emotional Rewards of Prosocial Behavior', Journal of Happiness Studies [Preprint]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s 10902-021 -00434-w.

124. Nastina E. A., Almakaeva A. M. (2020) Aspiration Level and Social Comparison as Factors in Determining Life Satisfaction Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. No. 1. P. 206-224. (In Russ.)

125. Nelson, S.K. et al. (2016) 'Do unto others or treat yourself? The effects of prosocial and self-focused behavior on psychological flourishing.', Emotion, 16(6), pp. 850861. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000178.

126. Null, C. (2011) 'Warm glow, information, and inefficient charitable giving', Journal of Public Economics, 95(5), pp. 455-465. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/jjpubeco.2010.06.018.

127. O'Brien, E.J. (1980) 'The self-report inventory: development and validation of a multidimensional measure of the self-concept and sources of self-esteem.'

128. O'Brien, E.J. and Epstein, S. (1988) MSEI: the Multidimensional self-esteem inventory: professional manual. Odessa, Fla.: Psychological Assessment Resources, Inc.

129. Osin, E.N. and Leontiev, D.A. (2020) 'Brief Russian-Language Instruments to Measure Subjective Well-Being: Psychometric Properties and Comparative Analysis', Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes Journal (Public Opinion Monitoring), 1, pp. 117-142. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.14515/monitoring.2020.1.06.

130. Petrenko, V.F. (1987). 'Psychosemantic Approach to Ethnopsychological Studies'. Sovetskaya etnografía, 3, pp 22-38. (In Russ.)

131. Pflug, J. (2009) 'Folk Theories of Happiness: A Cross-Cultural Comparison of Conceptions of Happiness in Germany and South Africa', Social Indicators Research, 92(3), pp. 551-563. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-008-9306-8.

132. Piliavin, J.A. (2003) 'Doing well by doing good: Benefits for the benefactor', in Flourishing: Positive psychology and the life well-lived. Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association, pp. 227-247. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/10594-010.

133. Prentice, M. et al. (2019) 'Morality as a Basic Psychological Need', Social Psychological and Personality Science, 10(4), pp. 449-460. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550618772011.

134. Prentice, M., Jayawickreme, E. and Fleeson, W. (2020) 'An experience sampling study of the momentary dynamics of moral, autonomous, competent, and related need satisfactions, moral enactments, and psychological thriving', Motivation and Emotion, 44(2), pp. 244-256. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09829-3.

135. Reed, A., Aquino, K. and Levy, E. (2007) 'Moral Identity and Judgments of Charitable Behaviors', Journal of Marketing, 71(1), pp. 178-193. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkg.71.L178.

136. Rogers, C.R. (1961) On becoming a person: a therapist's view ofpsychotherapy.

137. Rosenberg, M. (1965) Society and the Adolescent Self-Image. Princeton University Press. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctt183pjjh.

138. Rosseel, Y. (2012) 'lavaan: An R Package for Structural Equation Modeling', Journal of Statistical Software, 48, pp. 1-36. Available at: https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02.

139. Rowland, L. and Curry, O.S. (2019) 'A range of kindness activities boost happiness', Journal of Social Psychology, 159(3), pp. 340-343. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2018.1469461.

140. Ryan, R.M. and Deci, E.L. (2000) 'Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions and New Directions', Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), pp. 54-67. Available at: https://doi .org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

141. Sayer, A. (2010) 'Class and Morality.' In Handbook of the Sociology of Morality, 163-78. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. Springer, New York, NY. Available at: doi:10.1007/978-1 -4419-6896-8_9.

142. Schimmack, U. (2008) 'The structure of subjective well-being', in The science of subjective well-being. New York, NY, US: Guilford Press, pp. 97-123.

143. Schütz, A. and Baumeister, R.F. (2017) 'Positive Illusions and the Happy Mind', in M.D. Robinson and M. Eid (eds) The Happy Mind: Cognitive Contributions to Well-Being. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 177-193. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58763-9_10.

144. Schwartz, S. H. (2006) 'A Theory of Cultural Value Orientations: Explication and Applications.' Comparative Sociology 5(2/3), pp. 137-82. Available at: doi:10.1163/156913306778667357.

145. Schwartz, S.H. (2007) 'Universalism values and the inclusiveness of our moral universe', Journal of Cross-CulturalPsychology, 38(6), pp. 711-728. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022107308992.

146. Schwartz, S.H. and Bilsky, W. (1987) 'Toward A Universal Psychological Structure of Human Values', in. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.53.3.550.

147. Sedikides, C. et al. (2014) 'Behind bars but above the bar: Prisoners consider themselves more prosocial than non-prisoners', British Journal of Social Psychology, 53(2), pp. 396-403. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12060.

148. Sedikides, C. and Alicke, M.D. (2019) 'The five pillars of self-enhancement and self-protection', in The Oxford handbook of human motivation, 2nd ed. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press (Oxford library of psychology), pp. 307-319.

149. Seligman, M.E.P. (2011) Flourish: a visionary new understanding of happiness and well-being. New York: Free Press.

150. Sheldon, K.M. (2016) 'Putting Eudaimonia in Its Place', in J. Vitters0 (ed.) Handbook of Eudaimonic Well-Being. Cham: Springer International Publishing (International Handbooks of Quality-of-Life), pp. 531-541. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-42445-3_36.

151. Sheldon, K.M. and Lyubomirsky, S. (2019) 'Revisiting the Sustainable Happiness Model and Pie Chart: Can Happiness Be Successfully Pursued?', The Journal of Positive Psychology, pp. 1-10. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/17439760.2019.1689421.

152. Shirokanova A. (2020). Trends of subjective well-being in Russia: 1998-2018. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Sociology, 13(1), pp. 4-24. (In Russ.) Available at: https://doi.org/10.21638/spbu12.2020.101

153. Shmelev A. G. Psychodiagnostics of personality traits. Saint Petersburg, Speech, 2002, 480 p. (In Russ.)

154. Shweder, R. etal. (1997) 'The "Big Three" of Morality (Autonomy, Community, Divinity) and the "Big Three" Explanations of Suffering', in A. Brandt and P. Rozin (eds) Morality and Health. Routledge, pp. 119-169.

155. Simonova O.A. (2014) 'Sociology of Emotions and Sociology of Morality: Moral Emotions in Contemporary Society'. In: Sociological Yearbook, 2013-2014. (In Russ.)

156. Simonova, O.A. (2021) 'Emotional Imperatives of Late Modern Society and their Possible Social Consequences', Sociological Journal, 27(2), pp. 25—45. (In Russ.) Available at: 10.19181/socjour.2021.27.2.8084

157. Sinyavskaya O. V., Cherviakova A. A., Kareva D. E. (2019) 'Happy helpers? The impact of social activity on the levels of happiness among people aged 50 and over in the European countries', Monitoring of Public Opinion: Economic and Social Changes. 6, pp. 237—258. (In Russ.)

158. Sorokin, P.A. (1954) The Ways and Power of Love: Types, Factors, and Techniques of Moral Transformation. Beacon Press.

159. Stanley, M L. and De Brigard, F. (2019) 'Moral Memories and the Belief in the Good Self, Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(4), pp. 387—391. Available at: https://doi .org/10.1177/0963721419847990.

160. Stets, J.E. and Carter, M.J. (2011) 'The Moral Self: Applying Identity Theory', Social Psychology Quarterly, 74(2), pp. 192—215. Available at:

https://doi .org/10.1177/0190272511407621.

161. Stets, J.E. and Carter, M.J. (2012) 'A theory of the self for the sociology of morality', American Sociological Review, 77(1), pp. 120—140.

162. Stolin V.V. (1983) Self-consciousness of personality. Moscow: Publ. Moskovskogo Universiteta. (In Russ.)

163. Sun, J. and Goodwin, G.P. (2020) 'Do People Want to Be More Moral?', Psychological Science, 31(3), pp. 243—257. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619893078.

164. Tappin, B.M. and McKay, R.T. (2017) 'The Illusion of Moral Superiority', Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), pp. 623-631. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673878.

165. Tesser, A. (2001) 'Self-evaluative Process, Psychology of, in N.J. Smelser and P.B. Baltes (eds) International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences. Oxford: Pergamon, pp. 13826-13830. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/B0-08-043076-7/01725-3.

166. Tesser, A., Millar, M. and Moore, J. (1988) 'Some affective consequences of social comparison and reflection processes: The pain and pleasure of being close.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(1), p. 49. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.L49.

167. Trivers, R.L. (1971) 'The Evolution of Reciprocal Altruism', The Quarterly Review of Biology, 46(1), pp. 35-57. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1086/406755.

168. Turiel, E. (2002) The Culture of Morality: Social Development, Context, and Conflict. Cambridge University Press.

169. Uchida, Y., Norasakkunkit, V. and Kitayama, S. (2004) 'Cultural constructions of happiness: theory and emprical evidence', Journal of Happiness Studies, 5(3), pp. 223-239. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-004-8785-9.

170. Vaisey, S. (2009) 'Motivation and justification: a dual-process model of culture in action', The American Journal of Sociology, (6), p. 1675.

171. Veenhoven, R. (1984) Conditions of Happiness. Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-6432-7.

172. Veenhoven, R. (2012) 'Happiness: Also Known as "Life Satisfaction" and "Subjective Well-Being"', in Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of Life Research, pp. 63—77. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-2421-1_3.

173. Veenhoven, R. (2020) '"Hedonic" and "Eudaimonic" happiness: Which qualifies best as a moral guide', 'Hedonic' and 'Eudaimonic' happiness, 2020, pp. 1—19.

174. Vinogradov V.A., Larichev A.A. (2022) 'The Index of Ethicality of the Law as an Applied Tool for Assessing the Correlation between Law and Morality', Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 15(5), pp. 4—23 (in Russ.). Available at: 10.17323/2072-8166.2022.5.4.23

175. Walker, L.J. and Frimer, J.A. (2007) 'Moral personality of brave and caring exemplars.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93(5), pp. 845—860. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.93.5.845.

176. Waterman, A. (1993) 'Two Conceptions of Happiness: Contrasts of Personal Expressiveness (Eudaimonia) and Hedonic Enjoyment', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64A678.

177. Waterman, A.S., Schwartz, S.J. and Conti, R. (2008) 'The Implications of Two Conceptions of Happiness (Hedonic Enjoyment and Eudaimonia) for the Understanding of Intrinsic Motivation', Journal of Happiness Studies, 9(1), pp. 41— 79. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-006-9020-7.

178. Watson, D., Clark, L.A. and Tellegen, A. (1988) 'Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), pp. 1063—1070. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063.

179. Watson, N., Bryan, B.C. and Thrash, T.M. (2016) 'Self-discrepancy: Long-term test-retest reliability and test-criterion predictive validity.', Psychological Assessment, 28(1), pp. 59-69. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000162.

180. Weinstein, N. and Ryan, R.M. (2010) 'When helping helps: autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), pp. 222-244. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016984.

181. Welzel, C. (2013) Freedom Rising: Human Empowerment and the Quest for Emancipation. Cambridge University Press.

182. Wieners, L. etal. (2021) 'To whom should I be kind? A randomized trial about kindness for strong and weak social ties on mental wellbeing and its specific mechanisms of change', International Journal of Wellbeing, 11(4). Available at: https://doi.org/10.5502/ijw.v11i4.1489.

183. Wiggins, B. and Heise, D.R. (1987) 'Expectations, intentions, and behavior: Some tests of affect control theory', The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 13(1-2), pp. 153-169. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1987.9990030.

184. Wojciszke, B. (2005) 'Morality and competence in person- and self-perception', European Review of Social Psychology, 16(1), pp. 155-188. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280500229619.

185. Zamishchak M.I. (2014) 'Motivators of junior schoolchildren's moral self-appraisal'. Bulletin of the Moscow Region State University. Series: Psychology, 1, pp. 58-65. (In Russ.)

186. Zell, E. et al. (2020) 'The better-than-average effect in comparative self-evaluation: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis', Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), pp. 118— 149. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000218.