Introduction

Emancipative values advocate for the expansion of personal freedoms, self-expression, equality and autonomy. These values have been theorized to enhance life satisfaction, primarily through fostering a growing sense of empowerment and creating a wide array of opportunities for individuals [1]. Such empowerment manifests in various aspects of life, including the exercise of property rights, access to education, freedom of expression, increased tolerance and interpersonal trust, and active civic participation, all of which contribute to personal and societal development [2].

The human development model proposes that emancipative values foster a connection between agency and life satisfaction, but only after an expansion in the range of opportunities available to individuals [2]. This aligns with broader ideas that the fulfillment and impact of values on well-being are not universal but depend heavily on their congruence with societal norms [3–5]. Even at low levels, an alignment between individual and societal values can positively influence subjective well-being. Conversely, a mismatch between personal values and societal expectations may lead to cultural estrangement and diminished well-being. From an institutional approach, individual characteristics would contribute to subjective well-being to the extent that macro-level conditions are favorable for people with such characteristics. In essence, the relationship between emancipative values and well-being may be more nuanced than initially theorized, depending on the socio-cultural and institutional context in which these values operate.

Democracy, as a system of governance, embodies many of the principles inherent with emancipative values at a societal level. It provides a broader range of free choices, civil liberties, and opportunities for civic participation, including the incorporation of minorities [6]. Democratic systems typically promote life satisfaction by facilitating better access to essential services such as healthcare [7,8] and education, and by enabling personal freedoms as well as more equitable resource distribution compared to non-democratic practices. Similarly to emancipative values however, the relationship between democratic governance and subjective well-being may be nuanced and context-dependent. The beneficial impacts of democracy are frequently intertwined with a nation’s economic prosperity. A country’s wealth plays a crucial role in realizing the full potential of democratic governance, as substantial resources are essential for establishing and maintaining robust public institutions, infrastructure, and social services [9]. Likewise, the advantages of democracy and economic growth are not uniformly distributed across society. An individual’s income level significantly influences their ability to access and benefit from public services and economic opportunities [10].

The interplay between individual-level emancipative values and country-level democracy in shaping well-being became evident during the democratization process in Central and Eastern Europe, where systemic changes led to significant societal disruptions and shifts in individual values [11]. This raises an important question about the empirical relationship between political beliefs and life satisfaction when expectations and reality are misaligned, which, to our knowledge, remains underexplored.

At this point, it is important to recognize that while emancipative values are closely linked to democracy, they emerge at different levels: emancipative values arise at the individual level, whereas democracy operates at the level of governance or the state. In this sense, democracy provides the framework or enabling environment in which emancipative values can be expressed and realized. However, individuals living in democratic societies may not always hold emancipative values, and conversely, individuals in less democratic countries can still embrace and uphold emancipative values. Likewise, while there appears to be an obvious link between democracy and emancipative values, this connection is nuanced and influenced by several factors. To begin with, it is important to clarify what is meant by democracy, as it exists at different levels that may relate to emancipative values in varying degrees. As Coppedge et al. note, there is no consensus on a single definition of democracy beyond the basic idea of “rule by the people” [12]. In practice, most existing democracies are to some degree liberal and electoral, characterized by the rule of law, civil liberties, judicial independence, and free and fair elections of representatives. As conceptualized by the V-Dem project, there are three other key dimensions of democracy: participatory, deliberative, and egalitarian democracy, each capturing distinct but interconnected aspects of democratic life [12].

Recent research highlights that emancipative values drive a “critical-liberal” demand for democracy, where individuals with strong emancipative values insist on democratic freedoms and hold high standards for democratic quality, including making rulers truly responsive to citizens’ rights and freedoms [13], Likewise, electoral democracy serves as the essential mechanism that institutionalizes this responsiveness. Emancipative values motivate people to insist on genuine electoral competition, political pluralism, and the rejection of authoritarian or fraudulent practices [13].

Other forms of democracy – deliberative, participatory, and egalitarian – also connect deeply with emancipative values by emphasizing broader citizen engagement, inclusive decision-making, and equality. For instance, John Dewey viewed democracy as a moral and social association in which individuals realize their full potential through active involvement in their communities and institutions [14]. Dewey believed that such participation and deliberation are fundamental to individual freedom, extending beyond government into all areas of social life, fostering collaborative problem-solving and critical thinking.

Among the five dimensions of democracy, liberal democracy stands out as the most relevant domain for exploring emancipative values. As mentioned above, emancipation (autonomy, equality, choice, and voice) emphasizes values that align closely with liberal democracy (protection of rights, rule of law, and freedom to pursue one’s true self). Moreover, liberal democracy is perhaps the most tangible and visible form of democracy in our contemporary world, currently being seen as under threat, or alternatively as too hegemonic [15].

In the current study, we aimed to investigate whether the effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction is moderated by a country’s level of democracy. Understanding the relationship between emancipative values, political systems, and individual well-being, beyond the simplistic assumptions about the universal benefits of emancipative values or democratic systems, is crucial for a nuanced comprehension of human development and societal progress. Such knowledge is particularly relevant as policymakers shape democratic institutions, and in times where democracy is highly questioned.

We predicted that the democratic context would play a key role in shaping the effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction, manifesting as an interaction between liberal democracy and these values. The rising expectations model of revolution offers valuable insights to this hypothesis [16]. In essence, the model suggests that citizens become frustrated when there is a gap between their heightened expectations for a better life and their actual experiences (with increasing gaps potentially sparking revolutionary unrest). Applied to our research, this implies that in countries with low levels of democracy, individuals with high emancipative values may experience lower life satisfaction due to these unmet expectations. In turn, increasing levels of democracy might not necessarily lead to higher life satisfaction among those with the highest emancipative values, as they may still feel discontented that their ideals remain unfulfilled.

Methods

Analysis

To examine the varying effects of emancipative values across different levels of liberal democracy, we conducted a linear mixed effects regression using the following equation:

where is the life satisfaction for individual in country ; is the overall intercept; represents the sum of individual-level predictors (including emancipative values), and their coefficients; represents the sum of country-level predictors (including liberal democracy), and their coefficients; represents the interaction between the level of liberal democracy of country and emancipative values of individual , and its coefficient; denotes the number of years for which liberal democracy and LDI measurements were used prior to assessing life satisfaction, and its coefficient (applicable only when ); is the random intercept for each country, which follows a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance ; is the random slope for the emancipation factor, which follows a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance ; is the residual error term, which follows a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance .

Note that including country as a random factor allowed both the intercept and the effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction to vary by country. This approach accounted for the likelihood that observations within the same country are more similar to each other than to observations in other countries, thus addressing potential clustering effects in the data.

Also note that we conducted our main analysis using , and performed additional analyses for values ranging from 2 to 10 years to assess the robustness of our findings across different time lags.

Results

Individual and country characteristics, categorized across four ascending levels of liberal democracy, are reported in Table 1. Countries with the highest levels of liberal democracy were also the most economically prosperous. These democratic nations had the oldest participants. Individuals in these countries predominantly resided in larger settlements; were less likely to be married; had fewer children on average; demonstrated the highest levels of educational attainment; reported the highest incomes; and showed the greatest engagement in activities. Notably, residents of these highly democratic countries also expressed the strongest adherence to emancipative values.

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Table 1. Socio-demographic characteristics of the participants.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325198.t001

Our random effect model retrieved an overall negative effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction (b = −0.88; p < 0.001) but no significant effect of liberal democracy (b = −0.37; p = 0.41). However, there was a significant positive interaction between democracy and emancipative values (b = 1.04; p = 0.024). Standardized mean difference (Cohen’s d) for the interaction between liberal democracy and emancipative values was of 0.46. As a point of comparison, other variables were predictive of life satisfaction such as income level (b = 0.17; p < 0.001; d = 0.07), having no food (b = 0.29; p < 0.001; d = 0.13), being involved in group memberships (b = 0.10; p < 0.001; d = 0.04), settlement size (b = 0.09; p < 0.001; d = 0.04), or being divorced, separated or widowed (b = −0.34; p < 0.001; d = −0.15).

To further examine the positive interaction between democracy and emancipative values, we conducted a post-hoc Johnson-Neyman analysis. This analysis identified the specific levels of democracy at which emancipative values significantly predicted life satisfaction. There was a continuous increase in the mean estimate of emancipative values’ effect on life satisfaction across societies ranging from least to most democratic. Moreover, we found a significantly negative effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction at low levels of democracy (liberal democracy index lower than 0.50), but no significant effect at higher levels (Fig 1).

Download:

• PNG
  larger image
• TIFF
  original image

Fig 1. Effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction at different levels of liberal democracy.

Effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction across varying levels of liberal democracy, based on a model using democracy measures from one year prior to the survey year.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0325198.g001

S1 Fig displays the interaction between emancipative values and liberal democracy, taking into account democracy levels from two to ten years prior to the survey year. The positive interaction between emancipative values and liberal democracy remained significant when considering data from up to four years prior to the survey year. The pattern of significance across different levels of democracy was consistent, showing a negative effect of emancipative values in less democratic contexts and no effect in more democratic contexts.

Discussion

In this study, we investigated how the relationship between emancipative values and life satisfaction is moderated by the democratic context in which individuals live. While emancipative values are often associated with increased well-being, our findings reveal a more nuanced picture. After adjusting for various individual- and country-level factors, we observed a negative direct effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction. This negative effect appears to be moderated by the democratic context, as we found no significant effect in societies with higher levels of democracy. When interpreting our findings, it is important to remember that our statistical estimates were derived from a model that controlled for other key predictors of life satisfaction (i.e., “all other things being equal”). In particular, we must emphasize that ensuring basic survival remains a fundamental concern, and that life satisfaction depends on far more than just the interaction between emancipative values and democracy. Nonetheless, the effect size for the interaction betweven emancipative values and the level of democracy approached a moderate magnitude and was, in absolute terms, larger than other statistically significant predictors of life satisfaction, such as income level, food security, and involvement in active memberships.

Our results reveal a complex relationship between the level of democracy, emancipative values, and life satisfaction, challenging conventional wisdom regarding the universally positive impact of emancipative values. This complexity aligns with recent findings in the field. For instance, Krys et al. demonstrated that while there is a positive zero-order correlation between self-expression and happiness or subjective well-being, deeper analysis suggests that this association may be primarily driven by “open society attitudes” that foster care, trust, and interdependence [20]. When controlling for these open-society attitudes, more individualistic aspects of emancipation – such as opportunity, independence, and right to privacy – emerged as negative predictors of life satisfaction. Similarly, Yu’s work on secularization, a set of values emphasizing individual freedoms and autonomy in the context of separating religion from public affairs, found a negative relationship with life satisfaction [21]. Yu concluded that the positive relationship found in previous studies might be oversimplified, further underscoring the nuanced nature of these interactions and the need for more sophisticated models to understand the true impact of secular values on well-being.

Our findings offer a nuanced perspective on Welzel’s theory of human development, which posits that emancipative values lead to higher life satisfaction once basic survival needs are met [2]. After controlling for survival-related variables (such as lagged distributed income per capita, individual income, and food security), we observed a positive interaction between emancipative values and liberal democracy. This interaction suggests that the theory’s predictions hold relatively true in democratic societies when using less democratic societies as a reference point. However, our results also indicate that the relationship between emancipative values and life satisfaction is more complex than initially theorized, varying with the level of democracy and potentially influenced by other societal factors.

Our results highlights the importance of considering the democratic context when examining the impact of emancipative values on well-being. In less democratic environments, emancipative values may highlight a disconnect between individual aspirations and societal realities, potentially leading to frustration and social unrest as individuals struggle to align their beliefs with prevailing norms. Therefore, our results fit well with the rising expectations model of revolution which we briefly presented in the Introduction. Related to the model is the concept of relative deprivation, i.e., the discrepancy in what people expect to achieve and what they actually achieve [22]. According to this concept, it is this discrepancy, rather than absolute deprivation itself, that gives rise to dissatisfaction. The absence of a negative effect in more democratic societies suggests that as societies become more democratic, they may better accommodate citizens with emancipative values, aligning institutional structures with evolving societal values to enhance overall well-being.

Interestingly, we did not find a positive effect of emancipative values in highly democratic societies, possibly because individuals with less emancipative values can still thrive in such environments. Indeed, the emphasis on personal freedom and respect for others’ boundaries in highly democratic countries likely allows those who differ from the majority to feel comfortable. The non-significant effect of emancipation in highly democratic societies may also be attributed to the heightened tolerance for ambiguity and uncertainty associated with emancipative mindsets, which could inherently generate stress and potentially offset some of the benefits [23–25]. Another hypothesis to explain this negative finding is that increasing freedoms raise expectations, and greater awareness of remaining restrictions or repression can feel intolerable, and in turn would not significantly alleviate dissatisfaction. This dynamic may occur because of what has been conceptualized as the “Tocqueville effect” [26]. When freedom and emancipation become dominant ideals in democratic societies, any visible repression clashes sharply with those ideals, fueling discontent. In addition, Tocqueville warns that although formal liberties may exist, the growth of centralized power and bureaucratic control can subtly undermine genuine freedom, leading to a different kind of dissatisfaction, here not merely because rising expectations are unmet, but because the exercise of freedom is constrained even as its appearance remains [27].

Finally, this intricate relationship between democracy, emancipative values, and life satisfaction appears more pronounced when considering recent years of democracy rather than long-term trends. This suggests that the impact of emancipative values on life satisfaction is more responsive to recent changes in democratic quality rather than long-term democratic traditions. Looking ahead, what might happen as nations become even more democratic? One possibility is that the relationship between emancipative values and life satisfaction could eventually turn significantly positive, particularly as democratic innovations – such as citizen deliberation, direct democracy, or participatory governance – have demonstrated substantial societal benefits [28,29]. Alternatively, following the “Tocqueville effect” (as previously discussed), individuals with heightened emancipative values might continually seek further progress, meaning the relationship between these values and life satisfaction could remain non-significant even in highly democratic societies. Another possibility is that if democracy reaches exceptionally high levels, individuals with lower emancipative values may experience strong dissatisfaction. Further research is needed to determine whether this dynamic will manifest in the future.

Conclusion

Our findings highlight the importance of considering the democratic institutional context in understanding the impact of emancipative values on life satisfaction. When considering the role of democratic governance, the relationship between emancipative values and life satisfaction appears to be more complex than previously thought, challenging the view that emancipative values are related to improved well-being. After adjusting for various individual- and country-level factors, we observed a negative direct effect of emancipative values on life satisfaction in societies with low levels of democracy but no effect in societies that have higher levels of democracy. These results underscore the necessity of a nuanced understanding of how emancipative values interact with democratic institutions, indicating that promoting these values may not universally lead to improved life satisfaction, particularly in less democratic contexts.

Several potential mechanisms may underlie our findings. For instance, a diminished sense of belonging could result from a mismatch between a country’s level of democracy and an individual’s emancipative values. Other important mechanisms to consider include feelings of unfairness, injustice, and national pride. To better understand these competing explanations, we recommend collecting longitudinal survey data that track emancipative values and potential mediators over time, alongside life satisfaction as the outcome. This would enable the application of causal mediation analysis to more rigorously test these pathways.

Supporting information