The value of home comfort in the structure of values of individual life activity


The article provides an interpretation of the value of home comfort and explores its place in the structure of factors of a person’s life, including other personal values. A conceptualisation of the individual value of home comfort is suggested based on psychological and sociological ways of understanding it. The article’s empirical part is based on the results of two online surveys. The first was conducted in March 2020 among students of Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv (N = 417), and the second – among residents of the Kyiv region in June and July of 2021 (N = 728). The sociological test “Individual values and interests – 13” was used as a key technique for measuring individual values. The value of home comfort is considered through the article’s material and emotional components, namely: good conditions at the place of residence (material component) and home comfort (responsible for the emotional component). Home comfort is impossible without emotional and psychological comfort, which is subjective and can manifest differently for each person, depending on their value system. For statistical analysis, the Condorcet method was used to identify the cumulative rating of values, the chi-square independence test to analyse relationships with external factors, and the Z-test for one sample was applied to explore relationships with other values. Based on these empirical studies, the value “home comfort” ranks 6th among residents of the Kyiv region (2021) and 8th among students (2020) in the structure of proposed individual values. Home comfort yields such values as physical health, interpersonal relationships, psychological comfort, personal freedom, and morality. It can be argued that the weak, positive relationship was fixed between the value of “home comfort” with the level of education, marital status, and the way of spending free time. Among other individual values, “home comfort” is positively related to the value of “interpersonal relations”, and a negative relationship is observed for such individual values as self-realisation, freedom, and morality.

  1. Rokeach, M. (1968). A theory of organisation and change within value-attitude systems. Journal of Social Issues, 24 (1), 13-33.

  2. Inglehart, R. (1971). The silent revolution in Europe: Intergenerational change in post-industrial societies. The American Political Science Review, 65 (4), 991-1017.

  3. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture and organisations. International Studies of Management & Organisation, 10 (4), 15-41.

  4. Schwartz, S.H., Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53 (3), 550-562.

  5. Dembitskyi, S., Sydorov, M., Pliushch, V., Sosniuk, Ye., Shalimova, O. (2019). A systematic approach to sociological research of individual values. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 3, 102-123. [in Ukrainian]

  6. Giddens, A. (1991). Modernity and self-identity: Self and society in the late Modern age. Standford: Stanford Unity Press. URL:

  7. Dupuis, A., Thorns, D.C. (1998). Home, home ownership and the search for ontological security. Sociological Review, 46 (1), 24-47. URL:

  8. Sokhan, L. (2008). The style of the private life of an individual: a civilisational dimension. In M.O. Shulga (Ed.), Lifestyles: a panorama of changes (pp. 221-273). Kyiv: Institute of Sociology NAS of Ukraine. URL:–FdPn8sx [in Ukrainian]

  9. Comfort Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English, Fourth Edition. (2005). Harlow: Pearson Education Limited. URL:

  10. Burova, O. (2012). Life comfort: structure, factors, and formation mechanisms. Sotsiologiya: teoriya, metody, marketing – Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 1, 99-114. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  11. Kovalevska, O. (2011). Housings terms in system of descriptions оf life quality. Derzhavne upravlinnya: udoskonalennya ta rozvytokPublic administration: improvement and development, 3. URL: [in Ukrainian]

  12. Saunders, P., Williams, P. (1998). The constitution of the home: towards a research agenda. Housing Studies, 3 (2), 81-93. URL:

  13. Pennartz, P. (1986). Atmosphere at home: A qualitative approach. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 6, 135-153. URL:

  14. Veblen, T. (1912). The Theory of the Leisure Class. New York: B.W. Huebsch. URL:

  15. Inglehart, R. (1990). Culture shifts in advanced industrial society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. URL:,%20ch2.pdf

  16. Norris, P., Inglehart, R. (2009). Cosmopolitan communications: Cultural diversity in a globalised world. New York: Cambridge University Press. URL:

  17. Ventegodt, S., Merrick, J., Andersen, N.J. (2003). Quality of Life Theory II. Maslow Revisited. The Scientific World Journal, 3, 1050-1057.

  18. Ryan, R.M. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. URL:

  19. Crowley, J.E. (2001). The invention of comfort. Baltimore, London: Johns Hopkins University Press. URL:

  20. Dembitsky, S., Sidorov, M. (2022). The value of self-realisation in the structure of individual life. Sociology: theory, methods, marketing, 1, 6-28. URL:

  21. Sydorov, M.V.-S., Kostenko, Y.O. (2017). Analysis of rank scales in mass surveys. Visnyk KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina. Seriia “Sotsiolohichni doslidhzennia suchasnoho suspilstva: metodolohiia, teoriia, metody” Bulletin of V.N. Karazin KhNU. Series “Sociological research of modern life: methodology, theory, methods”, 39, 110-117. URL: [in Ukrainian]

Full text