MOSCOW, 18 June 2026. The Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VCIOM) presents the findings of a survey examining Russians’ perceptions of prestige, social status, and the good life.

Good Life!

Each era has its own markers of what constitutes the good life. In the Soviet period, when “our people didn’t take taxis to the bakery,” prestige was associated with having a private apartment, owning the long-awaited Moskvich car, and possessing scarce imported goods. In the 2000s, these markers were replaced by capitalist aspirations: European-style home renovations, holidays abroad, expensive mobile phones, and dining out. Social success became increasingly conspicuous and oriented toward the display of wealth.

Today, this hierarchy is shifting again, this time toward social security. Status is becoming more pragmatic, less conspicuous, and increasingly tied to long-term quality of life. Many former consumption markers have become commonplace and therefore lost their status value. Twenty years ago, wealth was signaled by a good apartment, a car, foreign travel, or expensive furniture. Today, what matters more are resources that provide families with long-term security: quality education for children and access to quality healthcare, both of which now rank above homeownership. Housing itself has also changed as a status marker: the emphasis has shifted from the quality of one’s home to the ability to own one. In other words, it is not what kind of home, but whether you own it.

Quality education for their children is a universal marker of status among Russians across generations. Men are somewhat more likely to associate status with owning a car, while women place greater importance on their children’s education, access to quality healthcare, and good housing. For younger generations, status is increasingly associated with homeownership and the ability to acquire property — from an apartment or a country house to real estate abroad. Owning a home is a key aspiration at this stage of life, shaping major life decisions — from starting a family to taking on long-term financial commitments. Car ownership also remains an important status symbol among younger Russians.

Older generations show a different picture. For them, social security becomes more important: their children’s education clearly takes the lead, followed by healthcare and housing — not as a matter of property ownership, but as a marker of comfort and quality of living.

Material circumstances have little impact on the overall ranking of responses, suggesting that the image of a prestigious life is fairly universal and largely independent of people’s personal means. Place of residence, however, does shape these aspirations.

In large cities, status is more often associated with property, mobility, access to opportunities abroad, leisure, and expanding living space. In rural areas and smaller settlements, the image of success is related to education, healthcare, and housing.

­

‘VCIOM-Sputnik’ nationwide telephone survey was conducted on May 23, 2026. The survey involved 1,600 Russians aged 18 and older. The method used was a telephone interview based on a stratified random sample drawn from a comprehensive list of mobile phone numbers operating in Russia. The data were weighted by socio-demographic parameters. The margin of error, with a 95% confidence level, does not exceed 2.5%. In addition to sampling error, survey results may also be affected by question wording and various circumstances arising during fieldwork.

Key survey effectiveness indicators as of May 23, 2026: cooperation rate (CR) *= 0.7052; minimum response rate (MRR) = 0.0350; response rate (RR) *** = 0.0714**

Calculations are based on corporate standard:

 * CR: the ratio of completed interviews to the sum of: (a) completed interviews and (b) all non-completed interviews with respondents who confirmed that they met the sampling criteria

* CR: the number of complete interviews divided by the sum of: а) complete interviews and b) non-interviews with eligible respondents.

** MRR: the ratio of completed interviews to the sum of: (a) completed interviews, (b) interrupted interviews after successful screening, and (c) all respondents for whom it remained unknown whether they met the sampling criteria.

**RR is calculated in the same way as the MRR, with the only difference being that the number of respondents whose eligibility remains unknown is reduced proportionally to the share of eligible respondents among all respondents whose eligibility status (eligible or not) was successfully determined.

*Until 2017, surveys were conducted through in-home face-to-face interviews (the “Express” project), using a stratified multistage sample with quotas based on sociodemographic characteristics. The sample was representative of the Russian population aged 18 and older by settlement type, gender, age, education, and federal district. The sample size was 1,600 respondents.

Author: Tatyana Smak