This survey took place between January 19-23, 2018 and was conducted throughout all of Russia in both urban and rural settings. The survey was carried out among 1600 people over the age of 18 in 137 localities of 48 of the country’s regions. The survey was conducted as a personal interview in respondents’ homes. The answer distribution is presented as percentages of the number of participants. The statistical error of these studies for a selection of 1600 people (with a probability of 0.95) does not exceed: 3.4% for indicators around 50%; 2.9% for indicators around 25%/75%; 2.0% for indicators around 10%/90%; 1.5% for indicators around 5%/95%.

The Levada Center presented two variations of a question about the most important events of 2017 in this survey. These variations’ only methodological difference was their formulation: open-ended (respondents named events independently) and closed-ended (respondents were presented with a card containing a list of events from which they could choose). The sets of questions were asked one month appart from one another; the open-ended form was used in December 2017 and the closed-ended form in January 2018. It is likely that this time difference affected the results and how they compare with one another (although the events overlap to a great degree, as can be seen in the tables below), so efforts will be made to conduct such experiements simultaneously in the future.

As can be seen in the results, the first two positions produced by each form are the same. The war in Syria and other events related to it rank first, while the doping scandal and banning of Russian athletes from competing in the PyeongChang Olympics come in second. Beyond that, the results diverge. While respondents mentioned “Vladimir Putin entering the presidential race,” “the economic crisis,” and “construction of the Crimean Bridge” more often as answers to the open-ended question, the third-place selections from the list of events provided on the card were the terrorist attacks in St. Petersburg, the conflict between Korea and the US, and the military operations in Donbass.

In general, however, there is significant overlap between events listed by respondents independently and events selected by respondents from the card (containing the list of proposed events), regardless of certain differences in how frequently they were mentioned. Important events from 2017 that respondents in both groups mentioned include corruption, the arrest and dismissal of officials; terrorist attacks in Russia and around the world; preparations for the presidential election; sanctions against Russia; natural disasters; events occurring in Eastern Ukraine; and demonstrations and protests.

Respondents name events more quickly and eagerly when selecting off of the prepared list than when coming up with the events themselves. The percentage of almost every position taken when using the card is therefore higher, and conversely, the number of those who answered “It is difficult to say” is five times lower than in the survey using the open-ended form (6% versus 32%, respectively). The total number of substantive responses (where respondents could name several events) was four times greater when using the card with the list than without it (447 and 118).

“Events in the respondent’s personal life” (such as weddings, births, etc.) were mentioned on the open-ended form with a frequency that is comparable to that of general Russian and international events. This highlights the fact that assessments of current processes and events are always made through the lense of an individual’s day-to-day values and interests. In other words, when taking stock of the year, people start with significant (or high-priority) events in their personal life, not with “external” events. The closed-ended question with the card can take into account events in the respondents’ personal lives only to a limited extent—they can be reported to the interviewer in the “Other” category if the respondent lists them there. However, they make up no more that 10% of all answers under this methodology.

It is particularly important to note that well-educated respondents, affluent respondents, relatively young respondents (ages 25-40), and respondents who lived in the capitol or large cities answered both the open-ended and closed-ended questions more actively. This would indicate that the ability to sort, recognize, and evaluate certain information or incidents as an “event” (which includes the potential for “bias” or involvement in the public sphere, an interest in social issues, etc.) is distributed extremely unevenly across the population in accordance with the social and cultural capital possessed by respondents. However, it is this type of paradigm and relationship that makes up what we call “society”.

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING EVENTS FROM 2017 DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT? (CLOSED-ENDED QUESTION: respondents were presented with a card containing a list of events from which they could select more than one answer; ranked in descending order)

WHICH OF THE FOLLOWING EVENTS FROM 2017 DO YOU CONSIDER TO BE THE MOST IMPORTANT? (OPEN-ENDED QUESTION: respondents listed events themselves and could name more than one event)

*This organization is banned in Russia.

Translated by Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey (formerly Monterey Institute of International Studies).

The ANO Levada Center has been forcibly included in the registry of non-commercial organizations acting as foreign agents.  Read the Director of the Levada Center’s statement of disagreement with this decision here.