Spiritual Well-Being and Basic Individual Values at Different Stages of Maturity

Abstract

The study of human well-being and its contributing factors is becoming increasingly important for psychologists. However, the authors of previous studies have primarily focused on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being; in comparison, the value correlates of spiritual well-being remain insufficiently studied, particularly across developmental stages. In the present study, we examined associations between spiritual well-being and basic individual values in a Russian-speaking convenience sample and compared these associations in adolescents/emerging adults and adults. Materials and methods: The study involved 197 respondents aged 14–21 (72 women (17.8 ± 1.7 years) and 125 men (17.9 ± 1.3 years)) and 762 respondents aged 22–72 (689 women (44.4 ± 10.1 years) and 73 men (40.6 ± 10.4 years)). Data were collected in 2024 within a cross-sectional study using an online self-report questionnaire distributed via Russian-language VKontakte and Telegram communities. Spiritual well-being was assessed using the adapted Spiritual Well-Being Scale, and values were assessed using the adapted Portrait Value Questionnaire, combined with standard statistical procedures. Results: Interpersonal conformity exhibited the strongest positive association with spiritual well-being, particularly in the younger group at the bivariate level and in the full-sample multivariable model. Face/reputation and openness to change were negative multivariable correlates of spiritual well-being. Compared with adolescents and emerging adults, adults exhibited weaker positive links between spiritual well-being and conservation-related values and more clearly negative links with hedonism, achievement, face/reputation, and self-enhancement. Conclusion: Spiritual well-being in this Russian-speaking online sample was most consistently associated with interpersonal harmony and was inversely associated with face/reputation and openness to change. These patterns should be interpreted as associative, context-bound, and developmentally sensitive rather than causal or population-representative, especially given the marked sex imbalance between the developmental groups.

1. Introduction

Well-being is commonly defined as a favorable evaluation of one’s life and functioning and is widely interpreted as a key indicator of mental health. Values, in turn, are relatively stable motivational constructs that express what individuals regard as important and worth striving for and thus guide goal-setting, decision-making, and behavior. As values organize life priorities and regulate long-term pursuits, clarifying their relationship with well-being is of both theoretical and applied importance. In the literature, hedonic well-being generally refers to pleasure, positive affect, and life satisfaction, whereas eudaimonic well-being emphasizes meaning, self-realization, and optimal functioning. Spiritual well-being overlaps with eudaimonia but additionally concerns a person’s relationship with the sacred, the transcendent, or ultimate meaning. Accordingly, individual values may be associated with spiritual well-being both through their links with meaning-related orientations and through the relationships, practices, and identities within which spirituality is lived.

A broad body of literature links basic individual values to multiple indicators of well-being—subjective (Schwartz and Sortheix 2018), emotional (Boer 2017), hedonic, and eudaimonic (Joshanloo and Ghaedi 2009)—and domain-specific forms of functioning (Bergin 1991). Empirical research findings increasingly demonstrate that values related to growth, self-transcendence, and openness to change tend to promote eudaimonic functioning and psychological flourishing; in comparison, values emphasizing self-enhancement or anxiety-driven self-protection may be associated with lower well-being, depending on context and available resources (Bojanowska and Piotrowski 2018). The results of recent studies underscore that these associations are not uniform but are instead moderated by personality traits, socio-economic circumstances, and culture, and that values are associated with well-being outcomes, particularly when they are enacted in everyday behavior (Bojanowska and Kaczmarek 2021; Bojanowska and Urbańska 2021).

Emerging intervention research further suggests that helping individuals to translate personally significant values into concrete actions has been associated with improvements in both hedonic and eudaimonic well-being, increasing self-insight, coherence, and meaningful engagement in life (Bojanowska et al. 2022; Russo-Netzer and Atad 2024).

Within this broader field, spiritual well-being occupies a distinctive position. In psychology, it is typically conceptualized as an individual’s experienced sense of meaning and purpose, together with a felt connection to something transcendent or larger than the self. Building on the foundational work that distinguished religious and existential dimensions of spiritual well-being (Ellison 1983), subsequent research findings have confirmed its multidimensionality and its role as a central component of overall health and adjustment across diverse groups, including patients with severe illness, older adults, teachers, and organ donors (Liaquat et al. 2013; Khodarahimi et al. 2021; Heidari et al. 2022; Gunes et al. 2025). Spiritual well-being has been demonstrated to correlate with hope, resilience in the face of suffering, and reduced psychological distress and to function as a resource that supports coping, identity, and meaning-making across cultures (Carson et al. 1988; Villani et al. 2019; Al-Thani 2025).

Despite this growing evidence, the specific links between spiritual well-being and basic human values remain insufficiently explored. The authors of existing studies on values and well-being have largely focused on hedonic and eudaimonic indicators—such as life satisfaction, affect balance, and psychological flourishing—rather than on spiritual dimensions of well-being. Nevertheless, theoretical accounts of eudaimonia and existential functioning suggest that the pursuit of value-congruent, self-transcendent, and meaning-oriented goals should be especially relevant for spiritual well-being, which centrally involves questions of life purpose, coherence, and one’s relationship to a transcendent reality (Bojanowska and Piotrowski 2018; You and Lim 2018). Despite the above findings, an important theoretical gap remains: it is unclear whether the value patterns associated with general well-being operate similarly when the outcome is specifically spiritual well-being and when its religious and existential dimensions are considered separately.

Developmental considerations further highlight the importance of this question. Adolescence and adulthood differ markedly in cognitive maturity, identity work, autonomy, social roles, and life tasks, all of which are closely tied to both value formation and meaning-making. Longitudinal and cross-sectional research indicates that self-regulatory pathways to eudaimonic well-being change across the life span, with age-related differences in goal adjustment, optimization, and representations of the self (Frazier et al. 2012). It is therefore plausible that the associations between values and spiritual well-being may vary across developmental stages. However, empirical evidence on how basic values relate to spiritual well-being, specifically in adolescence versus adulthood, remains scarce.

Research Aims and Questions

In this study, we pursue two main aims:

First, to investigate the relationship between spiritual well-being and basic individual values as conceptualized in Schwartz’s value theory.

Second, to examine whether the associations between basic values and indicators of spiritual well-being differ between adolescence and adulthood.

Accordingly, we address the following research questions:

First, how are different basic value orientations related to overall spiritual well-being and to its specific dimensions?

Second, do these value–spiritual well-being associations differ between adolescents and adults, and if so, in what ways?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design and Procedure

Data were collected in 2024 within a cross-sectional study design using a structured online self-report questionnaire. Invitations containing a study description and survey link were distributed via VKontakte and Telegram on pages and channels targeting university students, Orthodox Christian communities, and thematic interest groups. Thus, the sample should be understood as culturally and linguistically specific rather than population-representative. Participation was voluntary and anonymous.

2.2. Sample

The study included 959 participants: 197 aged 14–21 years (M = 17.8, SD = 1.5) and 762 aged 22 years and older (M = 44.0, SD = 10.2).

In terms of religious affiliation, most participants identified as Christian (n = 839, 87.5%). Additional groups comprised the following: Islam (n = 4, 0.4%), Slavic Native Faith/Rodnovery (n = 2, 0.2%), spiritual but unaffiliated (believe in God but no specific religion; n = 58, 6.0%), atheist (n = 41, 4.3%), and other (n = 15, 1.6%). This profile is consistent with the recruitment context, which primarily involved Russian-speaking online communities with a strong Christian/Orthodox presence. The diversity captured in the sample also reflects the use of a non-denominational measure of spiritual well-being that has been applied in heterogeneous religious samples.

To perform descriptive and exploratory age-related analyses, the sample was divided into two developmental groups: (a) adolescents and emerging adults (14–21 years; N = 197; females n = 72, mean age 17.8 ± 1.7 years; males n = 125, mean age 17.9 ± 1.3 years) and (b) adults (≥22 years; N = 762; females n = 689, mean age 44.4 ± 10.1 years; males n = 73, mean age 40.6 ± 10.4 years). This cut-off corresponds to the transition from pre-adulthood to early adulthood in life-span developmental theory (Erikson 1968; Arnett 2000). This division served an auxiliary purpose for interpreting age-related differences, as age 22 marks the end of the pre-adulthood stage and entry into early adulthood (Levinson 1986). Predictive models were estimated on the full sample without age stratification. The sample was not quota-balanced by sex or age. In the adult subgroup, women substantially outnumbered men, and this imbalance should be regarded as a limitation for generalizability rather than as a feature of representativeness. In addition, the two developmental groups differ substantially in the span of their age ranges (14–21 vs. 22–72 years); therefore, equal group sizes were not expected. At the same time, collapsing participants aged 22 to 72 into a single adult category is a pragmatic analytic simplification and should not be interpreted as implying developmental homogeneity across early adulthood, midlife, and later adulthood. Accordingly, the age-group comparison is best understood as a descriptive developmental contrast within this dataset rather than as a precise developmental partition of maturity. Because the sex composition differed sharply between the two developmental groups, subgroup contrasts may partly reflect sex-composition effects in addition to developmental differences and should therefore be interpreted with particular caution.

2.3. Measures

Spiritual Well-Being: Spiritual well-being was assessed using the 20-item Spiritual Well-Being Scale (SWBS) developed by Paloutzian and Ellison (1982), which differentiates religious and existential dimensions of spiritual well-being. The version used in the present study was adapted by Bakushkin and Ershova (2025). In the Russian-language adaptation study based on the present Russian-speaking dataset, internal consistency was high (Cronbach’s α = 0.906 for total SWBS, 0.937 for RWB, and 0.822 for EWB). The global fit of the two-factor CFA was suboptimal (RMSEA = 0.091, CFI = 0.88, GFI = 0.83, SRMR = 0.10), indicating that the model did not fully meet conventional fit criteria. Accordingly, the present findings are interpreted primarily at the level of observed-score associations rather than as evidence of a well-fitting latent structure and should be treated with caution with respect to structural validity. Items are rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (“Strongly agree”) to 6 (“Strongly disagree”), after appropriate reverse scoring where required. The SWBS yields the following: Religious Well-Being (RWB)—10 items, score range 0–60, indexing perceived quality of one’s relationship with God (transcendent dimension). Scores of 10–20 indicate dissatisfaction or strain in one’s relationship with God, scores of 21–49 reflect moderate religious well-being, and scores of 50–60 represent high religious well-being. Existential Well-Being (EWB)—10 items, score range 0–60, indexing perceived life meaning, purpose, and satisfaction independent of explicit reference to a higher power (immanent dimension). Scores of 10–20 indicate low life satisfaction and unclear life purpose, scores of 21–49 indicate moderate satisfaction and purpose, and scores of 50–60 indicate high satisfaction and a clear sense of purpose. A total spiritual well-being score (sum of RWB and EWB; range 0–120) was also computed. Consistent with prior work on the SWBS, total scores of 20–40 were interpreted as low, 41–99 as moderate, and 100–120 as high spiritual well-being. The SWBS is non-denominational and has been widely used in religious, interfaith, and non-religious populations to capture both religious and existential aspects of spirituality.

Basic individual values: Basic values were measured using the revised Portrait Values Questionnaire, PVQ-R2R (PVQ-57), based on Schwartz’s refined theory of 19 basic human values (Schwartz et al. 2012). The questionnaire comprises 57 items, with three items representing each value type. Respondents indicate how similar the described person is to themselves on a 6-point scale (1 = “Not at all like me” to 6 = “Very much like me”). The following 19 value dimensions were assessed: Self-Direction—Thought (SDT), Self-Direction—Action (SDA), Stimulation (ST), Hedonism (HE), Achievement (AC), Power—Dominance (POD), Power—Resources (POR), Face (FAC), Security—Personal (SEP), Security—Societal (SES), Tradition (TR), Conformity—Rules (COR), Conformity—Interpersonal (COI), Humility (HUM), Universalism—Concern (UNC), Universalism—Nature (UNN), Universalism—Tolerance (UNT), Benevolence—Caring (BEC), and Benevolence—Dependability (BED). The adapted PVQ-R2R1 demonstrated acceptable global fit in the present sample (CFI = 0.903). In addition, Russian validation work on Schwartz’s refined values theory has supported the differentiation of the 19-value structure, which strengthens the appropriateness of using this instrument in a Russian-speaking context.

2.4. Data Analysis

All analyses were conducted in R, version 4.4.0 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). We used a cross-sectional analytical framework comparable to recent work on spiritual well-being and psychological outcomes. For descriptive statistics, categorical variables are reported as absolute frequencies and percentages, and continuous variables are summarized as mean ± standard deviation and median with first and third quartiles (Q1–Q3). For group comparisons, between-group differences in continuous or ordinal variables were examined using the Mann–Whitney U test. Differences in categorical variables were evaluated using Pearson’s χ² test; when expected cell counts were <5, Fisher’s exact test was used. For bivariate associations, associations between quantitative variables were assessed using Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient. For presentation purposes, the correlations are shown to two decimal places, and statistically significant coefficients are marked with an asterisk (*). In terms of multivariable modeling, to identify variables independently associated with spiritual well-being, we first applied L1-regularized regression (LASSO) for variable selection, a procedure increasingly used in psychological research to address multicollinearity and high-dimensional predictor sets. Predictors retained by LASSO were then entered into standard multivariate linear regression models (without interaction terms) for RWB, EWB, and total SWB. Model fit was evaluated using the coefficient of determination R². Multicollinearity diagnostics were based on the variance inflation factor (VIF). All tests were two-tailed, and statistical significance was set at p < 0.05. Because the design was cross-sectional, all regression coefficients were interpreted as associative rather than causal. Age-related differences were examined through group comparisons and age-stratified associations rather than formal value × age interaction models; accordingly, these analyses were intended to describe developmental contrasts within the present dataset rather than to test statistical moderation by age.

Ethics

The study protocol complied with the ethical standards of psychological research on human participants, including voluntary participation, anonymity, and the right to withdraw without penalty. Informed consent was obtained electronically prior to survey completion.

3. Results

3.1. Spiritual Well-Being at Different Stages of Maturity

A quantitative analysis was conducted utilizing the Mann–Whitney U test, which revealed statistically significant disparities in the levels of spiritual well-being indicators between the identified groups (see

Table 1. Age differences in test scores for the main indicators of the “Spiritual Well-Being Scale”.

Characteristic	All Respondents	Age Group		p
		14–21 Years	≥22 Years
Spiritual well-being (SWB)	96.8 (±16.7) 100 (89–109)	81.6 (±20.5) 79 (66–99)	100.8 (±13) 103 (95–110)	<0.001
Religious well-being (RWB)	49.8 (±11.9) 54 (47–58)	35.9 (±15.2) 36 (23–48)	53.4 (±7.5) 55 (51–59)	<0.001
Existential well-being (EWB)	47 (±8.1) 48 (42–53)	45.7 (±9.3) 46 (38–54)	47.3 (±7.7) 48 (43–53)	<0.001

Note. Values are presented as M (SD) and Median (Q1–Q3). 14–21 years, N = 197; ≥22 years, N = 762.

).

Spiritual well-being among participants aged 14–21 years corresponded to a moderate level (M = 81.6, SD = 20.5); by comparison, in the older group, it corresponded to a high level (M = 100.8, SD = 13.0). Analogous outcomes were attained for the Religious Well-Being subscale: the younger group exhibited a moderate sense of religious well-being, whereas participants aged 22 and over demonstrated a positive view of their relationship with God. The respondents from both groups exhibited a moderate level of life satisfaction and a presence of purpose in life, as measured using the Existential Well-Being subscale.

3.2. Motivational Hierarchy of Individual Values at Different Stages of Maturity

Age-group differences in basic individual values (PVQ-R2R) for respondents aged 14–21 and ≥22 years are presented in

Table 2. Age differences in the indicators of basic individual values of the “Portrait Value Questionnaire, PVQ-R2R, S.H. Schwartz”.

Characteristic	All Respondents	Age Group		p
		14–21 Years	≥22 Years
Self-Direction—Thought (SDT)	4.5 (±1) 4.7 (4–5.3)	4.4 (±1.1) 4.3 (3.7–5.3)	4.5 (±1) 4.7 (4–5.3)	0.198
Self-Direction—Action (SDA)	4.6 (±0.9) 4.7 (4–5.3)	4.4 (±1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	4.6 (±0.8) 4.7 (4–5.3)	0.08
Stimulation (ST)	3.5 (±0.9) 3.7 (3–4.3)	3.9 (±0.8) 4 (3.3–4.3)	3.4 (±0.9) 3.3 (2.7–4)	<0.001
Hedonism (HE)	3.5 (±1.2) 3.7 (2.7–4.3)	4.3 (±1) 4.3 (3.7–5)	3.2 (±1.1) 3.3 (2.3–4)	<0.001
Achievement (AC)	3.4 (±1.2) 3.3 (2.7–4.3)	4.1 (±1.2) 4 (3.3–5)	3.3 (±1.2) 3.3 (2.3–4)	<0.001
Power—Dominance (POD)	2.6 (±1.2) 2.3 (1.7–3.3)	3.2 (±1.2) 3 (2.7–4)	2.4 (±1.1) 2.3 (1.3–3.3)	<0.001
Power—Resources (POR)	2.5 (±1.1) 2.3 (1.7–3.3)	3.1 (±1.2) 3 (2.3–3.7)	2.4 (±1) 2.3 (1.7–3)	<0.001
Face (FAC)	4.4 (±1.1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	4.3 (±1.2) 4.3 (3.3–5.3)	4.5 (±1.1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	0.008
Security—Personal (SEP)	5.1 (±1) 5.3 (4.7–6)	4.4 (±1.2) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	5.2 (±0.8) 5.5 (5–6)	<0.001
Security—Societal (SES)	4.8 (±0.9) 5 (4.3–5.7)	4.5 (±1.1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	4.9 (±0.9) 5 (4.3–5.7)	<0.001
Tradition (TR)	4.5 (±1.1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	4.3 (±1.2) 4.3 (3.3–5)	4.6 (±1.1) 4.7 (4–5.3)	<0.001
Conformity—Rules (COR)	4.4 (±1.1) 4.3 (3.7–5.3)	4 (±1.1) 4 (3–5)	4.5 (±1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	<0.001
Conformity—Interpersonal (COI)	5 (±1) 5.3 (4.3–6)	4.1 (±1.2) 4 (3–5)	5.3 (±0.8) 5.5 (5–6)	<0.001
Humility (HUM)	4.3 (±1) 4.3 (3.7–5)	3.9 (±1) 4 (3.3–4.7)	4.4 (±1) 4.3 (3.7–5)	<0.001
Universalism—Concern (UNC)	5.2 (±0.9) 5.3 (4.7–6)	4.7 (±1.1) 5 (3.7–6)	5.3 (±0.7) 5.3 (5–6)	<0.001
Universalism—Nature (UNN)	5.2 (±0.9) 5.3 (4.7–6)	4.7 (±1.2) 5 (3.7–5.7)	5.3 (±0.7) 5.3 (4.8–6)	<0.001
Universalism—Tolerance (UNT)	4.7 (±0.9) 5 (4–5.3)	4.3 (±1.1) 4.3 (3.3–5)	4.8 (±0.9) 5 (4.3–5.7)	<0.001
Benevolence—Caring (BEC)	4.3 (±1.1) 4.3 (3.7–5)	3.9 (±1.1) 4 (3.3–4.7)	4.4 (±1.1) 4.7 (3.7–5.3)	<0.001
Benevolence—Dependability (BED)	4.2 (±1) 4.3 (3.3–5)	4.1 (±1.1) 4 (3.3–5)	4.2 (±1) 4.3 (3.7–4.7)	0.403
Openness to Change (OC)	4 (±0.7) 4 (3.5–4.5)	4.3 (±0.8) 4.3 (3.7–4.9)	4 (±0.7) 4 (3.5–4.4)	<0.001
Self-Affirmation (A)	3.3 (±0.9) 3.2 (2.7–3.8)	3.8 (±0.8) 3.7 (3.2–4.3)	3.2 (±0.8) 3.1 (2.6–3.7)	<0.001
Conservation (C)	4,7 (±0.7) 4.7 (4.2–5.1)	4.2 (±0.9) 4.1 (3.5–4.9)	4.8 (±0.6) 4.8 (4.4–5.2)	<0.001
Self-Transcendence (ST)	4.6 (±0.7) 4.7 (4.2–5.2)	4.3 (±0.9) 4.3 (3.6–4.9)	4.7 (±0.6) 4.8 (4.3–5.2)	<0.001

Note. Values are presented as M (SD) and Median (Q1–Q3). Age: 14–21 years, N = 197; ≥22 years, N = 762.

. Compared with younger respondents, adults (≥22) reported significantly higher scores on 11 of the 19 value subscales: Face (FAC), Security—Personal (SEP), Security—Societal (SES), Tradition (TR), Conformity—Rules (COR), Conformity—Interpersonal (COI), Humility (HUM), Universalism—Concern (UNC), Universalism—Nature (UNN), Universalism—Tolerance (UNT), and Benevolence—Caring (BEC). At the higher-order level, they also scored higher on Conservation (C) and Self-Transcendence (ST). By contrast, younger respondents (14–21) scored significantly higher on Stimulation (ST), Hedonism (HE), Achievement (AC), Power—Dominance (POD), Power—Resources (POR), and the higher-order value dimensions Openness to Change (OC) and Self-Affirmation (A).

The Spearman correlations between the SWBS components (Religious Well-Being, RWB; Existential Well-Being, EWB; total Spiritual Well-Being, SWB) and the 19 PVQ-R2R value scales separately for the two age groups (14–21; ≥22 years) are presented in

Table 3. Results of the correlation analysis of the components of the questionnaires “Spiritual Well-Being Scale, SWBS” and “Portrait Value Questionnaire, PVQ-R2R, S.H. Schwartz” in the different respondent age groups.

Characteristic	Respondents Aged 14–21 Years			Respondents Aged 22 Years and Older
	Religious Well-Being (RWB)	Existential Well-Being (EWB)	Spiritual Well-Being (SWB)	Religious Well-Being (RWB)	Existential Well-Being (EWB)	Spiritual Well-Being (SWB)
Self-Direction—Thought (SDT)	0.04	0.19 *	0.10	0.01	0.05	0.02
Self-Direction—Action (SDA)	0.09	0.21 *	0.15 *	0.09 *	0.06	0.06
Stimulation (ST)	0.09	0.11	0.10	0	0	−0.01
Hedonism (HE)	0.07	0.10	0.09	−0.22 *	−0.11 *	−0.20 *
Achievement (AC)	0.06	0.14	0.11	−0.15 *	−0.10 *	−0.15 *
Power—Dominance (POD)	−0.16 *	−0.15 *	−0.17 *	−0.27 *	−0.23 *	−0.28 *
Power—Resources (POR)	−0.09	−0.14	−0.13	−0.15 *	−0.16 *	−0.17 *
Face (FAC)	0.16 *	0.15 *	0.18 *	−0.10 *	−0.18 *	−0.16 *
Security—Personal (SEP)	0.25 *	0.29 *	0.29 *	0.21 *	0.15 *	0.21 *
Security—Societal (SES)	0.16 *	0.18 *	0.20 *	0.04	0.05	0.05
Tradition (TR)	0.25 *	0.33 *	0.31 *	0.26 *	0.23 *	0.27 *
Conformity—Rules (COR)	0.32 *	0.27 *	0.35 *	0.19 *	0.12 *	0.18 *
Conformity—Interpersonal (COI)	0.51 *	0.37 *	0.53 *	0.35 *	0.26 *	0.36 *
Humility (HUM)	0.16 *	0.12	0.17 *	0.23 *	0.15 *	0.20 *
Universalism—Concern (UNC)	0.22 *	0.25 *	0.26 *	0.22 *	0.17 *	0.21 *
Universalism—Nature (UNN)	0.26 *	0.36 *	0.34 *	0.31 *	0.24 *	0.30 *
Universalism—Tolerance (UNT)	0.28 *	0.25 *	0.31 *	0.19 *	0.13 *	0.17 *
Benevolence—Caring (BEC)	0.29 *	0.09 *	0.29 *	0.23 *	0.18 *	0.22 *
Benevolence—Dependability (BED)	0.29 *	0.27 *	0.31 *	0.13 *	0.17 *	0.16 *
Openness to Change (OC)	0.10	0.19 *	0.15 *	−0.06	−0.01	−0.06
Self-Affirmation (A)	0.04	0.03	0.05	−0.25 *	−0.20 *	−0.26 *
Conservation (C)	0.34 *	0.33 *	0.38 *	0.23 *	0.15 *	0.22 *
Self-Transcendence (ST)	0.32 *	0.32 *	0.36 *	0.30 *	0.24 *	0.30 *

Note. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient (ρ). * p < 0.05. 14–21 years, N = 197; ≥22 years, N = 762.

.

Across both age groups, higher RWB, EWB, and total SWB were generally negatively associated with Power—Dominance (POD), and in the older group additionally with Power—Resources (POR). Positive associations were observed most consistently for Security—Personal (SEP), Tradition (TR), Conformity—Rules (COR), Conformity—Interpersonal (COI), Universalism—Concern (UNC), Universalism—Nature (UNN), Universalism—Tolerance (UNT), Benevolence—Caring (BEC), Benevolence—Dependability (BED), and the higher-order dimensions Conservation (C) and Self-Transcendence (ST). RWB and total SWB were also positively related to Humility (HUM).

Age-specific patterns were as follows:

Age 14–21:

RWB exhibited an additional positive association with Security—Societal (SES). EWB was positively associated with Self-Direction—Thought (SDT), Self-Direction—Action (SDA), Face (FAC), Openness to Change (OC), and Security—Personal (SEP). Total SWB in this group was positively associated with SDA, FAC, OC, and SEP (all ps < 0.05).

Age ≥ 22:

RWB and total SWB showed additional negative associations with Hedonism (HE), Achievement (AC), Face (FAC), Self-Affirmation (A), and Power—Resources (POR). EWB was negatively associated with HE, AC, FAC, and A and positively associated with Humility (HUM). RWB was also positively associated with Self-Direction—Action (SDA) (all ps < 0.05).

The results of L1-regularized (LASSO) regression for total spiritual well-being (model R² = 0.55) are presented in

Table 4. Multivariate predictors of spiritual well-being.

Predictor	Β	SE	95% CI	p	VIF
Free member	34.2	4.2	-	-	-
Age (years)	0.084	0.04	0.006, 0.163	0.034	2.37
Having children	2.35	1.03	0.33, 4.37	0.023	1.95
Face (FAC)	−1.45	0.347	−2.13, −0.769	<0.001	1.21
Conformity—Interpersonal (COI)	4.9	0.47	4, 5.8	<0.001	1.75
Openness to Change (OC)	−2.24	0.586	−3.4, −1.1	<0.001	1.38

. Candidate predictors comprised sociodemographic variables (age, gender, marital status, parental status, and education) and all 19 PVQ-R2R value subscales. After LASSO selection and subsequent multivariable estimation, higher spiritual well-being was independently associated with older age and having children. In terms of value orientations, lower scores on Face (FAC; reputation) and Openness to Change (OC) and higher scores on Conformity—Interpersonal (COI) were associated with greater spiritual well-being. Variance inflation factors showed no evidence of problematic multicollinearity among the retained predictors.

4. Discussion

The present findings help to clarify the distinction between general and spiritual forms of well-being. While hedonic well-being primarily concerns pleasure and positive affect, and eudaimonic well-being concerns meaning, growth, and self-realization, spiritual well-being adds a specifically existential–transcendent dimension. In this framework, the observed positive links between spiritual well-being and interpersonal conformity, tradition, security, benevolence, and universalism suggest that, in this sample, spiritual flourishing is embedded less in novelty-seeking and status striving than in social embeddedness, moral orientation, and perceived existential coherence.

Concurrently, these results should not be interpreted as demonstrating that conformity is universally beneficial. Rather, in the present Russian-speaking convenience sample, interpersonal conformity appears to reflect relational attunement, concern for others, and the maintenance of harmonious ties—qualities that may support both religious well-being and existential stability. This interpretation is consistent with work on relational spirituality, humility, and prosocial value orientations, but it remains context-dependent and should be verified in other cultural and denominational settings (Ruffing et al. 2021; Pargament et al. 2001).

The developmental comparison further suggests that identical values may function in distinct ways across different stages of maturity. In the younger group, some self-oriented values (e.g., openness to change, face, and self-direction-related orientations) exhibited neutral or even weakly positive bivariate links with spiritual well-being, whereas in adults, hedonism, achievement, face, and broader self-enhancement were more clearly negative. A plausible psychological explanation is that during adolescence and emerging adulthood, these values may still be integrated with identity exploration, whereas in mature adulthood, they may more often conflict with stability, generativity, and spiritually meaningful commitments. This interpretation is theoretical rather than causal and should be tested longitudinally.

The regression results should likewise be interpreted cautiously. Conformity—Interpersonal (COI) emerged as the strongest independent positive correlate of overall spiritual well-being, whereas face and openness to change were negative correlates. However, because the data are cross-sectional and based on self-reports, these patterns do not establish directional effects; spiritually healthier participants may also develop different values over time.

A more critical reading of the findings also highlights aspects that the data do not reveal. The findings do not indicate that autonomy, pleasure, or achievement are inherently detrimental; rather, their associations with spiritual well-being varied by developmental stage and analytic model. This nuance is important because value–well-being relations are known to depend on cultural norms, social roles, and the degree to which values can be enacted without internal or social conflict (Sortheix and Schwartz 2017; Rudnev and Vauclair 2018).

From an applied perspective, the results suggest that educational, counseling, pastoral, and well-being interventions aimed at strengthening spiritual well-being may benefit from focusing on relational responsibility, concern for others, existential meaning, and socially grounded value reflection rather than on abstract value endorsement alone. For adolescents and emerging adults, such interventions may be especially useful when they aid in integrating autonomy and exploration with prosocial and meaning-oriented commitments.

Methodologically, the use of Schwartz’s refined 19-value model remains a strength of the study because it enables a more differentiated description of value profiles than broader higher-order dimensions alone. Concurrently, the present results should be considered in conjunction with the psychometric constraints of the SWBS adaptation: the scale exhibited high internal consistency and theoretically coherent two-dimensional scoring; however, the global fit of the two-factor CFA was suboptimal and does not meet commonly accepted thresholds for good model fit. This limitation constrains the interpretation of the scale at the latent level and suggests that the present results should be understood primarily as reflecting relationships between observed variables rather than a well-established factor structure. The test-subsample SRMR value for the original two-factor model (SRMR = 0.10) is consistent with this cautious interpretation. Further replication with additional psychometric work and latent-variable designs would strengthen confidence in the structural interpretation. The PVQ findings should likewise be interpreted at the level of observed value scores rather than as definitive latent structure evidence for this particular sample.

Lastly, the study’s contribution lies not in claiming universal patterns but rather in demonstrating how spiritual well-being is associated with values within a specific Russian-speaking online context that is predominantly Christian in composition. This contextualization is important because it places the findings at the intersection of developmental psychology, value theory, and culturally situated spirituality research.

5. Limitations

The findings should be interpreted in light of several limitations. First, the cross-sectional design captures concurrent associations only and does not permit causal inference. Second, we used a Russian-speaking convenience sample recruited online; therefore, the results are culturally specific and cannot be generalized to the wider population without caution. Third, the recruitment strategy yielded a sample that was both predominantly Christian and uneven with respect to sex and age composition. The marked sex imbalance—especially in the adult subgroup—may have affected subgroup estimates. Moreover, because the sex composition differed sharply across the two developmental groups, some subgroup contrasts may partly reflect sex-composition differences rather than age-related processes alone. Likewise, the predominance of Christian participants is understandable given the recruitment channels but limits generalizability to less religious, non-Christian, or more religiously heterogeneous populations. Fourth, the adult group covered a substantially broader age range than the younger group, and collapsing participants aged 22 to 72 into a single adult category likely obscured important heterogeneity across early adulthood, midlife, and later adulthood. The developmental comparison should therefore be interpreted as exploratory rather than as a balanced cohort contrast. Similarly, because developmental differences were examined through group comparisons rather than formal value × age interaction models, the study does not test age moderation in a strict statistical sense. Lastly, omitted variables such as denomination, intrinsic religiosity, personality, and socioeconomic context may have influenced both values and spiritual well-being (Pargament et al. 2001). On this basis, we refrain from interpreting the subgroup contrast as a precise population-level developmental effect.

6. Future Research

The authors of future studies should employ longitudinal cohort designs following participants from adolescence into later adulthood; such designs could clarify age-graded developmental paths and possible bidirectionality. Replication in different cultural, religious, and socio-economic contexts is required to determine the universality versus cultural specificity of the value–spiritual well-being links. Future studies should also include direct measures of non-conformity, multidimensional religiosity (e.g., intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation, frequency and type of religious practice, and spiritual struggles), and additional indicators of spiritual functioning in everyday life. Such measures would help clarify which aspects of spiritual life are most strongly linked with specific value orientations and whether the present pattern is specific to conformity-related values or extends to broader autonomy-versus-normative tension. Testing mediational models remains crucial for clarifying the processes through which values may be associated with spiritual well-being; candidate mechanisms include perceived social support, meaning in life, goal congruence, and relational authenticity.

7. Conclusions

In summary, the findings presented herein demonstrate that, in a Russian-speaking online sample, spiritual well-being was most consistently associated with interpersonal harmony, prosocial orientation, tradition, and security. Conformity—Interpersonal (COI) emerged as the most robust positive correlate of spiritual well-being; in comparison, face/reputation and openness to change exhibited negative multivariable associations. These findings should be interpreted strictly as context-specific associations rather than causal or population-representative effects, given the cross-sectional design and psychometric constraints of the measures used. Nonetheless, they suggest that the value foundations of spiritual well-being are developmentally sensitive and culturally embedded, making them relevant for future longitudinal and applied research. The contribution of the study is therefore heuristic rather than definitive: a theoretically meaningful value pattern is identified that now requires replication under more balanced sampling conditions.