Activity of Muscovites in the Urban Environment: The Role of the Responsibility Factor

Full Text

Introduction Researchers in urban psychology interpret urban life mainly as a source of discomfort and problems for urban residents. In this vein, research is underway to identify the socio-psychological problems in everyday life of urban residents, their mental states, due to the peculiarities of living in a large city (Solovey, Kovaleva, 2017). Descriptions are given of such phenomena as refusal to interact with “familiar strangers”, noted by St. Milgram as a form of adaptation to urban “overload”; problems of “underground life” in the city subway; anonymity, indifference, dispassionateness of an urban resident in relation to others, Ph. Zimbardo’s conclusions about social anonymity and depersonalization of people in big cities as provocations of asocial behavior, M. Heidmets’ observations about the loss of traditional neighborly relations and many other problematic phenomena that manifest themselves in a big city (see a detailed analysis of these phenomena: Drobysheva, Zhuravlev, 2016). The main emphasis in modern domestic research on the psychology of urban residents “is placed on differences in the content, structure, factors and mechanisms of mental representations of the city in the everyday consciousness of representatives of different social groups living in it” (Drobysheva, Zhuravlev, 2016. P. 307). What calls attention to itself is the increased interest of researchers in the positive aspects of urban life. Thus, for example, discussions are held on the factors of the friendliness of the urban environment as well as the organizational, cultural and educational potential of the city, including: providing citizens with the opportunity to participate in public life; introducing innovative technologies into urban life; holding events aimed at supporting and popularizing education (Lebedeva, Filipova, 2019). As part of the study of the urban mentality, T.V. Semenova creates, on the basis of applied developments, a “socio-psychological portrait” of the city, including urban social norms, urban humor, urban traditions, and the historical time of the city (Semenova, 2020). The historical and psychological perspective of studying the image of the city is characteristic of French works (Jodelet, 1982; Haas, 2004). A number of foreign authors consider urban life from the point of view of positive psychology (e.g., Mayo, 1979; Stokols et al., 2009); studies are carried out on the activity of citizens in the fields of sports, dog breeding, inclusion (Carnemolla et al., 2021); analyses are made of the advantages of urban life, the balance of its usefulness and costs (D’Acci, 2021). It is shown how in the industrial city of Velenje in Slovenia its industrial development has formed a specific cultural environment, which accumulates latent knowledge, attitudes, values and traditions associated with solidarity, mutual respect, multiculturalism, camaraderie, equality, and diligence (Kozina et al., 2021). Despite a significant number of works devoted to various aspects of the psychology of urban residents, the problem of their social activity and manifestations of their need for self-realization as actors practically remains unaddressed. The topics of social participation in improvement at the local level, the possibility of dialogue with local authorities and influence on city policy are rarely raised in the framework of social psychology. One cannot but agree with D.M. Loguntsova that “the city... is facing the problem of deepening ties with the population, activating the latter as a real subject of the city and providing opportunities for optimal self-realization of a city dweller in the city” (Loguntsova, 2008). The author shows that there is a contradiction “between the need for self-realization, constantly reproduced in the acmeological development of a person in ontogeny, and the degree, nature and level of manifestation of its subjectivity, as well as between the significance of the possibility of self-realization and the level of manifestation of a city dweller as an actual subject of the city” (Loguntsova, 2008. P. 3). Thus, it is stated that at present a person exists in the city to a greater extent as a consumer of urban goods but not as a subject of the city. The results of an acmeological analysis (Loguntsova, 2006; Zolotukhin, 2004, etc.) suggest the need to develop approaches to revealing the psychological mechanisms and factors of social activity/inactivity of urban residents. What determines the subjectivity of the metropolitans in relation to their city? To investigate this problem, it is necessary to conduct a comprehensive analysis, which would include historical background, consideration of the traditions of urban management, a sociological and political studies of the current level and nature of interaction between the government and the population of the city. In turn, the socio-psychological approach will make it possible to discover the value orientations typical of urban residents, the characteristics of urban identity, the degree of responsibility for what is happening in the city and the willingness to make any efforts for the good of the city. Another topical issue is the understanding of what are the characteristics of social groups and generations in their perception of themselves as urban residents. In this complex of factors, one of the most important is the phenomenon of responsibility as a promising one for studying psychological resources that provide a productive and proactive beginning in the life of large social groups of urban residents. Based on the similarity principle applied by E.V. Shorokhova, “mental phenomena in large groups can be divided into areas of the psyche. Just as these areas are in general psychology, we can talk about cognitive, need-motivational, affective and regulative-volitional areas. All mental processes in these areas in the psychology of large groups acquire their own specific features” (Shorokhova, 2020. P. 258), it should be assumed that the phenomenon of responsibility can also be considered as an attribute of a social group. The sense of responsibility shared by urban residents motivates them to be active and exacting in regard to their living conditions. The responsible attitude of big-city dwellers to their city is a resource for their self-realization, since it is precisely this that ensures the quality of their self-consciousness as responsible citizens, and, consequently, the ability to meaningfully and actively live and develop in the conditions of the metropolis. In Russian psychological science, the concept of responsibility was developed mainly as a property of an individual subject (Dementiy, 2001; Muzdybaev, 2010; Sorokin, 2018, etc.). Social responsibility is interpreted by Muzdybaev as the inclination of individuals to adhere to social norms, fulfill role-related duties and their readiness to give an account for their actions (Muzdybaev, 2010. P. 25). He introduces the concepts of ‘external’ and ‘internal’ responsibility, emphasizing its social nature, since first of all, people “feel responsible for the problems of their environment, because they internalize the values of their environment, are responsible for their implementation” (Muzdybaev, 2010. P. 43). Muzdybaev, highlighting the levels of responsibility, considers its high level as a stable personality trait, and its low level as a state that characterizes the responsible attitude of the subject in certain situations. Responsibility can also be considered as an attribute of a collective subject - a small group or large social groups, for example, young people from different countries when the social perceptions of Russian and French students are compared (Pachtchenko-de Preville, Drozda-Senkovska, 2013), or as responsibility for the well-being of younger generations, i.e., ‘generativity phenomenon’ (Milfont, Sibley, 2011; Nestik et al., 2019; Emelyanova, Belykh, 2020; and others). Responsibility as an attribute of a collective subject is interpreted by analogy with the traditionally studied phenomena related to the field of psychology of a collective subject. Like the phenomena of ‘collective memory’, ‘social representations’, ‘collective experiences’, social responsibility in the case of a collective subject is considered as a quality shared by members of the group, their inherent quality. In our study, we solved the problems of identifying the levels of responsibility of city dwellers for the well-being of their city and the subsequent analysis of its type (taking over or transferring it to others), as well as identifying the role of responsibility as a predictor of their active position to improve living conditions in the city. A high level of responsibility for what is happening in the city suggests that city dwellers perceive the problems of their city as relevant to themselves. Value orientations in this case perform a motivating function, because responsibility is always manifested in a situation that is significant for the subject. The purpose of our work was to study the responsibility of the residents of the metropolis as a resource for their self-realization as active citizens. The research objectives were as follows: (1) to identify and analyze the types of responsibility in groups of the respondents with different levels of responsibility; (2) to find connections between value orientations and indicators of responsibility in different groups of the respondents; (3) to describe the willingness of the respondents with different levels of responsibility to take an active part in the life of their city; and (4) to analyze the role of responsibility as a predictor of the activity of the citizens to improve living conditions in the city. Methods Participants. The study involved residents of Moscow (N = 359) living in different administrative districts of the city, aged from 18 to 75 years (18-35 years - 44%, 36-60 years - 29%, 61-75 years - 27%), males 48.2% and females 51.8%. Their marital status was as follows: married 49%, unmarried 35%, common-law partners 16%. Most of the respondents had higher education (67%), the rest had secondary and specialized secondary education. Almost half of the sample (49.5%) were employed, students made up 15.5%, some combined study and work (6%), the rest (29%) did not work. The distribution by time of residence in the metropolis was as follows: born in Moscow 48%, living for more than 20 years 19%, living from 5 to 20 years 18%, and living less than 5 years 15%. The following techniques were used: two questionnaires composed by the authors to identify the type of responsibility of the citizens and their readiness for active participation in the life of their city; value orientation technique by E.B. Fantalova; and sets of questions that reveal the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents. The questionnaire “Responsibility of Urban Residents” (developed by T.V. Drobysheva) was based on an analysis of the statements of Muscovites of different ages, users of the Yandex.Raion resource. In a frequency content analysis, ten judgments were selected from all the judgments, reflecting different manifestations of responsibility, the degree of agreement with which was subsequently assessed by the respondents on a 5-point Likert scale. The overall test score was calculated as the sum of the scores for all the items. In the process of psychometric testing, it was found that all the items significantly correlated with the overall test score (p < 0.001), except for the item “in my opinion, ‘an active city dweller, is an office worker who has nothing to do”. After its removal, the reliability-consistency of the items was re-checked (α = 0.775; avg. = 33.18; standard deviation = 6.13; min = 9; max = 45), all items are direct and interconnected (Spearman’s test, p < 0.05). In order to identify the readiness of the city dwellers to actively participate in the life of the city, a short author’s questionnaire (developed by S.V. Tarasov) also based on the material of the Yandex.Raion resource (see Drobysheva, 2020). It included attitudes indicating the degree of readiness of the city dwellers to take an active part in the life of their city, for example: “I am ready to do work that requires physical effort from me (wash the floor on my stair landing, take away the garbage from the entrance”; “I am ready to participate in municipal activities (create an initiative group, etc.)”, “I am ready to take part in online discussions on the problems of the city”, etc. The degree of agreement with the judgments was assessed by the respondents using the Likert scale. In the initial analysis of the data, it was found that all the judgments were significantly related to each other (Spearman’s test, p < 0.05), the reliability-consistency of items was checked (α = 0.7). The questionnaire also included questions of a socio-demographic nature: the age and gender of the respondents, the administrative district of residence, etc. The data were processed using the SPSS 20.0 statistical software package. Results The first stage of the work consisted in identifying the degree of agreement with judgments expressing various aspects of the responsible attitude of the big-city dwellers towards their city (Table). An analysis of the judgments most highly rated by the respondents shows that, worrying about what is happening in the city, the majority of the respondents place responsibility on the city and municipal authorities and other citizens. They do not really believe that their own actions can change life in the city. However, a third of the sample is ready to take action for the benefit of the city, provided that the predicted result will positively affect the quality of city life. Only a small part of the respondents are aware of their responsibility for everything that happens not only in their home or microdistrict but also in the city as a whole. In the study, the respondents were divided into subgroups depending on the level of responsibility. The calculation was carried out according to the average values of the total test score and standard deviation (average = 33.18; standard deviation = 6.13). The subsequent frequency analysis showed that 25% of the respondents (Group 1) had a high level of responsibility, 57% had an average level of responsibility (Group 2), and 18% had a low level of responsibility (Group 3). No differences were found in the groups by gender, education, marital status, employment, time and place of residence (Kruskal - Wallis H-test at p < 0.05). Age differences were found among the groups according to the Kruskal - Wallis H-test (Chi-square = 6.38; p = 0.041). In Groups 2 and 3, the age distribution is relatively even: in Group 2, the median = 36.5; in Group 3, the median = 39.5; in the group with a high level of responsibility there is a shift towards older age: the median = 50. At the same time, the distribution parameters (interquartile range) in all the three groups were identical (32-35). Table Results of descriptive statistics according to the questionnaire “Responsibility of Urban Residents” Judgments М (σ) Percentage 1. I believe that my actions to improve living conditions in my city have an impact on what is happening 2.91 (1.24) 11 2. If I try to make life in the city better, then my example will encourage my neighbours and friends to do something for this too 3.09 (1.26) 13.4 3. The main reason for the negative effects of life in a big city (noise, dirt, bad ecology, aggression of people, etc.) are the actions of the citizens themselves 3.58 (1.24) 29 4. I am ready to comply with the rules aimed at improving the quality of life in my city, even if I do not really like it 3.94 (1.08) 36.5 5. I feel moral responsibility for what happens in my city, my neighbourhood, or the entrance of the house where I live 3.45 (1.21) 23 6. City officials more than anyone else are responsible for the well-being of residents 4.19 (1.0) 51 7. If everyone does something to improve the city, microdistrict or their yard, then life in the metropolis will be more comfortable 4.07 (1.06) 45 8. If everyone attends their own business, then there will be fewer problems in the city 3.75 (1.19) 33 9. I am very worried when I see dirt and debris in my yard or entrance lobby. Municipal authorities should be responsible for the cleanliness of streets and adjacent territories 4.22 (0.91) 48.5 Note: M is the average; σ is the mean standard deviation; percentage is the proportion of the respondents who gave the answer “absolutely agree”. The comparative analysis according to the Kruskal - Wallis H-test and the median test (p < 0.05) showed that judgment scores in the three groups differed significantly. The only exception is the transfer of responsibility for what is happening to representatives of the city authorities: in this case, there was a consistency of answers throughout the sample. Based on the average values in each of the groups, a ranking structure of the responsibility of city dwellers was built (Figure). Additionally, a network analysis of the structure of responsibility was carried out using a correlation analysis between the most pronounced judgments (they occupy Ranks 1, 2, 3 in each group) and others. The results show that the respondents with a high level of responsibility (Group 1) are confident that “if every citizen does something, then life in the metropolis will become more comfortable” (Rank 1), while emphasizing their readiness to control their behaviour in the city (“I am ready to follow the rules...”) (Rank 2). However, while worrying about the disorder in their microdistrict, the respondents still transfer part of the responsibility to the municipality (“I am very worried... but the responsibility should be borne by the authorities”) (Rank 3). These three judgments are positively related to each other (p < 0.05). Correlation analysis of connections (according to Spearman, p < 0.05) between the most pronounced and other judgments showed that the basis of such an understanding of a responsible attitude is the internal type of responsibility of the respondents (“I feel moral responsibility for what is happening in my city…”). It is positively associated with all the three high-ranking judgments: “if everyone does something… then life in the metropolis will be more comfortable” (r = 0.262; p = 0.013); “I am ready to follow the rules…” (r = 0.32; p = 0.002); “I am very worried.., but the municipal government must be held responsible…”; (r = 23; p = 0.032). At the same time, the responsibility shared by the respondents for comfort in the city is reinforced by the belief that their actions still have an impact on what is happening in the metropolis (r = 0.214; p = 0.004). Such an understanding of responsibility can be explained by its links with the system of value orientations of the respondents. In particular, it was found that a responsible attitude to the city in Group 1 is associated with orientations towards the values of active life (r = 0.22; p = 0.041), aesthetic values (r = 0.24; p = 0.026), values of cognition (r = 0.21; p = 0.004). Taking into account that Group 1 consists of older people than the other two, it can be assumed that their internal type of responsibility is probably associated with the desire to continue an active lifestyle, helping not only their families but also the urban community. If everyone does something…Group 3Group 2Group 1I’m very worried…If everyone attends…The representatives of…I feel…I am ready to follow…The main reason…If I try…I believe that my… Figure. Rank structure of responsibility of the citizens (inverse scale: Rank 9-1, Rank 8-2, etc.) In Group 2 (mean level), in the rank structure of responsibility, the most highly rated judgments were: “I am very worried when I see dirt and debris... the municipal government should be responsible...” (Rank 1), “representatives of the city authorities more than anyone are responsible…” (Rank 2), “if everyone does something, ... then life in the city will be more comfortable” (Rank 3). Moreover, the relationship between the first and second of the above judgments (r = 0.28; p = 0.000) testifies to the semantic load of the position taken: “I’m worried, but... the authorities bear responsibility.” We find additional support for this assumption by analyzing the connection between the judgment that city officials should be held responsible with other judgments, such as: “I believe that my actions… influence what is happening” (r = -0.164; p = 0.019) and “if I try to make life in the city better, my example will encourage my neighbours and friends to do something about it” (r = -0.223; p = 0.001). As can be seen, the lower the degree of agreement with judgments of the internal type, the higher the agreement that the city government bears responsibility more than others. This variant of a responsible attitude to the city is determined in Group 2 by personal (“love”, r = 0.14, p = 0.042; “happy family life”, r = 0.14, p = 0.049) and social (“active life”, r = 0.26, p = 0.000; “self-confidence”, r = 0.14, p = 0.046) values of the respondents’ lives. In Group 3 (with low indicators of responsibility for the well-being of the city), the tendency to transfer responsibility to others is more pronounced than in the previous one. Namely: “representatives of the city authorities are more than anyone else responsible for the well-being of residents” (Rank 1), “I’m worried, but the municipal government should be responsible...” (Rank 2), “if everyone attends their own business, there will be fewer problems in the city” (Rank 3). The connection of the judgment that city authorities are responsible for life in the city with other judgments about responsibility confirms the categorical position of the respondents. In particular, the more pronounced the transfer of responsibility to the authorities, the lower the assessment of judgments: “I believe that my actions to improve living conditions in my city have an impact on what is happening” (r = -0.41; p = 0.001), “if I try to make life in the city better, then my example can encourage my neighbours and friends to do something about it too” (r = -0.26; p = 0.039); “I feel morally responsible for what is happening…” (r = -0.25; p = 0.046). That is, such citizens see a resource for a positive change in urban life not in their actions but in the actions of city and municipal authorities. The frequency analysis of attitudes that determine the willingness of the respondents with different levels of responsibility to directly participate in the life of the city in order to improve the living conditions of citizens showed the following. The respondents with a high level of responsibility are ready to perform work requiring physical effort from them (60% Group 1); to participate in district hearings on employment issues (57%); to participate in municipal activities, e.g., on creating an initiative group (54%); to take part in online discussions (Yandex.Raion, etc.), online voting (“Active Citizen”, etc.) on city problems (83%); and to organize meetings of homeowners associations, residents of one entry section, etc. (30%). The participants in the study with a mean level of responsibility limit their participation in city life to online voting, online discussions on city problems (69% in Group 2), willingness to do work that requires physical effort (38%) or take part in city hearings on improvement issues (33%). Finally, the respondents with a low level of responsibility expressed their readiness to participate in the city life only remotely, i.e., through online voting, online discussions (35% in Group 3). In order to identify the importance of responsibility as a predictor of the activity of city dwellers to improve living conditions in the city, a multiple regression analysis was performed. The results of the study showed (CMC = 0.553; CMD = 0.306; F = 37.84; p = 0.000) that a third of the distribution can be explained by the influence of the responsible attitude of the city dwellers towards the city. The final model included the following independent variables: “I believe that my actions to improve living conditions in my city have an impact on what is happening” (β = 0.258; t = 4.84; p = 0.000), “if everyone to do something for the improvement of the city, microdistrict, yard, then life in the metropolis will be more comfortable” (β = 0.235; t = 4.054; p = 0.000), “I feel moral responsibility for what is happening in my city, microdistrict or section of the house where I live” (β = 0.139; t = 2.46; p = 0.016). Discussion Solving the first task of the study - to identify and analyze the type of responsibility in groups of respondents with its different levels - the authors analyzed the data of the questionnaire “Responsibility of Urban Residents”, which showed that the majority of the respondents place responsibility on the city and municipal authorities, as well as on other citizens and practically do not believe that their own actions can change life in the city. According to the results of descriptive statistics, the respondents were divided into three groups, depending on the level of responsibility, which made it possible to identify its internal or external type. The results indicating that the expressed responsible attitude of the respondents towards the state of the city is based on internal responsibility determined by certain values (active life, aesthetic values), suggest the existence of a special type of social responsibility for the state of the city (solution to the second task). It is associated with the readiness of the citizens to actively solve city problems, participate in public hearings, and even keep order in their stairwell and house on their own. In contrast to the first type of social responsibility, two others emerged, the representatives of which showed mean and low levels of responsible attitude. These groups are characterized by predominantly delegating responsibility for the state of the city to external forces, i.e., other citizens and city authorities. They show their willingness to participate in the life of the city mainly remotely, i.e., through online voting and online discussions. Only an insignificant part of the representatives of Group 2 (the mean level of responsibility) is ready to participate in the improvement of their place of residence. The contradictory nature of such responsibility is determined by the correlation between the significance of personal and social values. However, we cannot say that the low level of responsibility of the citizens is equivalent to their irresponsibility. The peculiarity of such responsibility allows residents to be concerned about urban problems, but it is external in nature. Here we should agree with K. Muzdybaev (Muzdybaev, 2010), who believes that the responsibility of this category of people is situational. It can be assumed that this attitude towards their city and citizens is determined by the current psychological state of this category of residents, their life circumstances and beliefs. It is possible that the external type of responsibility is the result of paternalistic attitudes (Belinskaya et al., 2004) or attitudes of city dwellers-consumers who are sure that the authorities are merely obliged to provide them with the necessary benefits. Summarizing, we note the following. The responsibility of the respondents for what is happening in their city in the three groups differs mainly in the severity of their internal/external judgments or their pessimistic/optimistic attitudes towards belief in their own strengths, and positive or negative expectations of changes in urban life, subject to the active participation of all citizens in any transformations or events. Thus, when solving the second and third tasks, we obtained results indicating the presence of an important set of qualities of citizens, which includes the following interrelated elements: responsibility of the internal type, value orientations of activity, knowledge and craving for beauty, as well as willingness to take a real and active part in the urban beautification. Thus, in the group with a high level of responsibility, the responsibility is conscious in nature, it is based on confidence in oneself as a subject of transformations in the urban environment. The driving factors for the responsible attitude of this category of city dwellers are their value orientations, which underlie the desire for their self-realization. Complementing the results of the correlation analysis, the data of the multiple regression analysis showed that the responsible attitude of citizens to city affairs is indeed a resource of their life position as active and energetic citizens. Meanwhile, one cannot ignore the fact that most of the respondents place responsibility for the well-being of the capital on the city authorities and other citizens, i.e., demonstrate an external type of responsibility in relation to the state of their city. This result requires additional confirmation. So far, we can only assume that there are a number of explanations for this. It is commonly known that the urban identity of metropolitan residents is characterized by an opinion about the unconditional advantages of Moscow compared to other cities (Emelyanova, Tarasov, 2020), and this forms their image of a prosperous city, where all problems are solved without the participation of residents, and the already mentioned paternalistic attitudes “take effect”. In addition, the stressful nature of metropolitan life forces the residents to concentrate on momentary everyday problems (Martsinkovskaya, 2017), which overshadow their needs for self-actualization in a broader social context. However, we cannot disregard the peculiarities of modern communication between the Muscovites and city management, namely, virtual communication, which can play the role of “snorting steam.” Conclusion The socio-demographic analysis of the sample has shown that the subgroup of Muscovites with an internal type of responsibility mostly consists of retirement-age people. It is they who, in terms of an active and responsible attitude towards their city, turn out to be the most viable, having a subjective position, the ability to adapt and sustainably develop in a changing environment. The question arises, what are the prospects for self-actualization of metropolitan residents in the future? In other words, is it possible to increase the subjective resources of Muscovites of the younger generations as active and responsible citizens? Further research is required to answer these questions. But it is obvious that, in practical terms, it is necessary to develop special city programs focused on the interests of young people, participating in which young Muscovites could feel themselves not as consumers of the capital’s goods, but as active subjects of city life. In this regard, it is useful not only to carry out campaigns to inform citizens about the intentions of the authorities, but also to develop programs involving enthusiasts in an active and effective discussion and planning of innovations in the city (building, demolition, transformation of recreation areas, renovation), which would reduce the confrontation and complaints from disgruntled residents, but consolidated the population and city authorities.

About the authors

Tatyana P. Emelyanova

Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: t_emelyanova@inbox.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0458-7705

Dr.Sc. in Psychology, Professor, is Principal Researcher at the Laboratory of Social and Economic Psychology

13 Yaroslavskaya St, bldg 1, Moscow, 129366, Russian Federation

Tatyana V. Drobysheva

Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: tdrobysheva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-9578-4463

Ph.D. in Psychology, is Principal Researcher at the Laboratory of Social and Economic

13 Yaroslavskaya St, bldg 1, Moscow, 129366, Russian Federation

Eva N. Vikentieva

Finance University under the Government of the Russian Federation

Email: vikentieva@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-5531-1912

Ph.D. in Psychology, Associate Professor, is Associate Professor of Psychology and Development of Human Capital Department

49 Leningradskii Prospekt, Moscow, 125993, Russian Federation

Semyon V. Tarasov

Institute of Psychology of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Author for correspondence.
Email: sementarasovvas@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0001-8790-7219

M.S. in Psychology, is Ph.D. Student, Laboratory of Social and Economic Psychology

13 Yaroslavskaya St, bldg 1, Moscow, 129366, Russian Federation

References