Well-being as a function of person-country fit in human values

The study investigates whether matching between individuals’ personal values and the prevailing values of their country or region (person-environment value congruence) is associated with greater well-being. Building on Schwartz’s model of ten basic value types, prior theory suggests shared values can enhance belonging, reduce internal conflict, and facilitate goal pursuit, thereby improving well-being. However, prior findings on value congruence and well-being are mixed, partly due to methodological issues (e.g., difference scores, profile correlations, varied samples). The authors propose multilevel polynomial regression and response surface analysis to disentangle linear, quadratic, and interaction (fit) effects for each value type across multiple well-being outcomes. They predict that congruence in conservation values (security, tradition, conformity) will be positively associated with well-being, whereas congruence in openness-to-change values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism) may show the opposite pattern. They also examine whether fit at the country versus region level differentially relates to well-being, and test for linear effects of values on well-being, with no specific predictions for quadratic effects or for self-enhancement versus self-transcendence value congruence due to mixed prior literature.

The paper reviews the Schwartz circumplex model of values and prior person–environment fit research. Earlier congruence studies used subjective versus objective congruence, student versus nonstudent samples, and analytic approaches such as difference scores and profile correlations, both of which have conceptual and statistical limitations (e.g., reduced reliability, ambiguity, and masking value-specific effects). Polynomial regression with response surface analysis is argued as superior, modeling two predictors (personal and aggregate values) and their linear, quadratic, and interaction effects in three dimensions. Prior work using polynomial methods found small, selective fit effects for personality on self-esteem across cities and effects for attitudes and national pride, motivating a value-based approach. The authors also consider theory suggesting sinusoidal associations across the value circle, implying opposing congruence effects for values with opposing motivations.

Design and data: Cross-sectional analyses using representative samples from the European Social Survey Round 6 (2012–2013), across 29 countries (28 European countries plus Israel), N = 54,673 (mean age 48.31, SD 18.59; 29,727 women, 24,929 men, 17 missing gender). Countries were subdivided into 351 regions; analyses of region-level fit included regions with at least 100 participants, yielding 184 regions and 45,282 participants. Measures: Values assessed with the 21-item Portrait Value Questionnaire (PVQ), measuring ten value types. Responses recoded so higher scores reflect greater endorsement; prior research supports configural and metric invariance across countries. Well-being measured along six dimensions per Jeffrey et al.: evaluative (2 items, r=0.71), emotional (6 items, α=0.82), functioning (14 items, α=0.85), vitality (4 items, α=0.69), community well-being (5 items, α=0.67), and supportive relationships (4 items, α=0.57). Items were standardized before averaging; T-transformed (M=50, SD=10) for analyses. Analytic strategy: Multilevel polynomial regressions predicting each well-being dimension from individual-level value (linear and quadratic terms), aggregate (country or region) value (linear and quadratic terms), and their interaction (fit). Predictors were centered at their means before computing interaction and quadratic terms. Models controlled for individual age and gender, and for country/region-level age and sample size; robustness checks additionally controlled for HDI, education, and income with similar patterns of results. Response surface analyses visualized effects. A total of 10 (value types) × 6 (well-being outcomes) × 2 (country vs region) regressions were conducted; interpretations focused on effects with p ≤ 0.001. Software: R (lme4, RSA, ggplot2, MuMIn). The occurrence of matches/mismatches and multicollinearity were checked. No ipsatization of values was applied for reasons of measurement comparability and interpretability.

• Person–country fit effects vary by value type, with consistent patterns across six well-being dimensions and replication at the region level.
• Positive interaction (fit) effects: security, achievement, and power—well-being is higher when individuals who prioritize these values live in countries/regions where these values are also prioritized.
• Negative interaction (fit) effects: self-direction, stimulation, and hedonism—well-being is lower when individuals who highly value these live in countries/regions where these values are also highly valued.
• Minimal or inconsistent fit effects for benevolence and universalism; tradition and conformity showed less consistent effects, mainly for social relationship outcomes.
• Region-level replication: Interaction coefficients for individual–region fit strongly correlated with individual–country fit, r(64)=0.97, p<0.001 (mean difference ≈ 0.06), indicating similar effects whether environment is defined by country or region.
• Illustrative coefficients: • Security predicting evaluative well-being: individual-level linear B=0.11, SE=0.05, p=0.0154; country-level linear B=-6.66, SE=1.82, p=0.0012; interaction B=0.64, SE=0.14, p<0.0001 (higher well-being at high personal–country security matches). • Stimulation predicting evaluative well-being: individual linear B=1.02, SE=0.03, p<0.0001; individual quadratic B=-0.14, SE=0.02, p<0.0001; country-level linear B=8.42, SE=4.71, p=0.0861; interaction B=-1.85, SE=0.17, p<0.0001 (lower well-being when both person and country are high in stimulation).
• Curvilinear effects: Individual-level stimulation showed a reliable negative quadratic effect across all six well-being dimensions (all ps ≤ 0.0004), indicating highest well-being at moderate levels of stimulation endorsement.
• Effects were similar across Eastern and Western Europe and robust to controls (age, gender, education, income, HDI).

The findings clarify that person–society value congruence does not uniformly enhance well-being; instead, effects depend on the value type. Congruence in anxiety-avoiding, conservation/self-enhancement-related values (e.g., security, achievement, power) is associated with higher well-being, consistent with needs for stability, shared purpose, and environmental affordances. Conversely, for anxiety-free openness-to-change values (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism), congruence at high levels relates to lower well-being, aligning with theory that these values are linked to distinctiveness motives and lower national identification, which may reduce benefits from similarity in the surrounding environment. Less consistent congruence effects for universalism, benevolence, tradition, and conformity may reflect high consensual endorsement and lower variance (self-transcendence) or weaker direct relevance to personal well-being (tradition, conformity), with some relevance for interpersonal relationship outcomes. Similarity of effects for country and region suggests limited between-country variance in value priorities relative to within-country variance in Europe. The consistent inverted-U for stimulation suggests optimal well-being at moderate stimulation, consistent with optimal activation theories and links to sensation seeking.

This study contributes a nuanced, value-specific account of person–environment value fit and well-being, leveraging multilevel polynomial regression across large, representative samples from 29 countries. It demonstrates that fit can be beneficial (security, achievement, power) or detrimental (self-direction, stimulation, hedonism), challenging assumptions of uniformly positive congruence effects. It also reveals robust curvilinear relations for stimulation, with maximal well-being at moderate endorsement, and shows that fit effects generalize from countries to regions. Future research should examine moderators such as social identification with country/region, extend analyses beyond Europe where value variance may differ, refine measurement invariance of well-being constructs, and explore mechanisms linking self-transcendence values to interpersonal and societal outcomes.

• Generalizability: Samples are from Europe and Israel; value distributions and variance may differ in other regions, potentially altering congruence effects.
• Measurement: The six-dimensional well-being measure shows limited cross-country measurement invariance (varying factor solutions), which could attenuate or obscure effects; some scales have modest reliability (e.g., supportive relationships α=0.57).
• Unmeasured moderators: National/regional identification, social identity processes, or context-specific affordances were not measured and may moderate fit effects.
• Cross-sectional design: Causal inferences cannot be established; bidirectionality or third variables may influence associations.
• Limited between-country variance in values in Europe may constrain detection of some country-level effects; HDI controls reduced some country-level linear effects.
• The study did not formally test strict congruence criteria (e.g., ridge line alignment) due to differing variances at individual vs aggregate levels, focusing instead on interaction and quadratic terms.