Revista Cultura Científica - web logo
Submit Your Research
  • Research Article

Subjective Feeling of Happiness and Social Determinants of Quality of Life

Tetiana Ulianova1, Oksana Kuznietsova2, Iryna Vasylenko1, Alona Ohneva3, Olga Tkachenko4
1Department of General and Differential Psychology, South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky, Odesa, Ukraine
2Department of Psychology, Social Work and Inclusive Education, Odesa Regional Academy of In-Service Education, Odesa, Ukraine
3Department of General and Differential Psychology, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky”, Odesa, Ukraine
4Department of General and Differential Psychology, Educational and Research Institute of Psychology and Social Sciences, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky”
DOI: https://doi.org/10.70517/revcc2624173
Published: 15/10/2026
: Tetiana Ulianova, Oksana Kuznietsova, Iryna Vasylenko, Alona Ohneva, Olga Tkachenko. Subjective Feeling of Happiness and Social Determinants of Quality of Life. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2104-2117.

Abstract

The aim of the study was to develop an integrated conceptual synthesis of the relationships between individual experiences of well-being, assessments of living conditions, and social-environmental factors, while distinguishing their direct, mediated, and context-dependent associations. The study was conducted in September 2026 in the format of an integrative review of 25 English-language peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2022–2025, which covered data from European countries, Ukraine, China, Japan, the United States of America, South Africa, Guatemala, the Philippines and other national contexts. The reviewed scientific material was systematically organized into five analytical blocks. The findings indicated that material resources and economic status are associated with higher levels of well-being, although these relationships vary with initial income, perceived inequality, security, fairness, and perceived position in the social hierarchy. In one of the included meta-analyses, the average positive effect of cash transfers was d = 0.13, supporting the importance of material resources while also indicating that financial resources alone do not fully explain well-being. The synthesis found that support, trust, participation, and family and neighbourhood ties are positively associated with well-being, particularly when they provide meaningful inclusion, reciprocity, and access to assistance; loneliness, social exclusion, and unemployment are negatively associated with well-being. The spatial environment was also found to be relevant, although its associations with well-being depend on safety, housing status, and access to local resources. The integrated interpretation of the results produced a three-level conceptual structure in which structural-resource conditions interact with interpersonal relationships through individuals’ subjective assessments of their social position. These findings support integrated approaches to improving well-being that combine material support with measures to strengthen community participation, improve access to assistance, and reduce inequality and social exclusion.

Keywords: population well-being, material security, interpersonal ties, community participation, inequality, trust

Abstract

The aim of the study was to develop an integrated conceptual synthesis of the relationships between individual experiences of well-being, assessments of living conditions, and social-environmental factors, while distinguishing their direct, mediated, and context-dependent associations. The study was conducted in September 2026 in the format of an integrative review of 25 English-language peer-reviewed scientific articles from 2022–2025, which covered data from European countries, Ukraine, China, Japan, the United States of America, South Africa, Guatemala, the Philippines and other national contexts. The reviewed scientific material was systematically organized into five analytical blocks. The findings indicated that material resources and economic status are associated with higher levels of well-being, although these relationships vary with initial income, perceived inequality, security, fairness, and perceived position in the social hierarchy. In one of the included meta-analyses, the average positive effect of cash transfers was d = 0.13, supporting the importance of material resources while also indicating that financial resources alone do not fully explain well-being. The synthesis found that support, trust, participation, and family and neighbourhood ties are positively associated with well-being, particularly when they provide meaningful inclusion, reciprocity, and access to assistance; loneliness, social exclusion, and unemployment are negatively associated with well-being. The spatial environment was also found to be relevant, although its associations with well-being depend on safety, housing status, and access to local resources. The integrated interpretation of the results produced a three-level conceptual structure in which structural-resource conditions interact with interpersonal relationships through individuals’ subjective assessments of their social position. These findings support integrated approaches to improving well-being that combine material support with measures to strengthen community participation, improve access to assistance, and reduce inequality and social exclusion.

Keywords: population well-being, material security, interpersonal ties, community participation, inequality, trust

References

  1. Fors Connolly, Filip, and Arvid Lindh. “Socioeconomic Status, Need Fulfillment, and Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 26, no. 6, 2025, article 108.

  2. Dwyer, Ryan J., and Elizabeth W. Dunn. “Wealth Redistribution Promotes Happiness.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 119, no. 46, 2022, article e2211123119.

  3. Bottoni, Gianmaria, and Felice Addeo. “The Effect of Social Cohesion on Subjective Individual Quality of Life in European Countries.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 171, no. 3, 2024, pp. 1111–33.

  4. Adedeji, Adekunle, et al. “Examining the Pathways from General Trust Through Social Connectedness to Subjective Wellbeing.” Applied Research in Quality of Life, vol. 18, no. 5, 2023, pp. 2619–38.

  5. Glatz, Christoph, and Andreas Schwerdtfeger. “Disentangling the Causal Structure Between Social Trust, Institutional Trust, and Subjective Well-Being.” Social Indicators Research, vol. 163, no. 3, 2022, pp. 1323–48.

  6. Prati, Gabriele. “Correlates of Quality of Life, Happiness and Life Satisfaction among European Adults Older than 50 Years: A Machine-Learning Approach.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, vol. 103, 2022, article 104791.

  7. McGuire, Joel, et al. “A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Cash Transfers on Subjective Well-Being and Mental Health in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Nature Human Behaviour, vol. 6, no. 3, 2022, pp. 359–70.

  8. Ren, Zirong, et al. “The Influence of Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Life Satisfaction: The Chain Mediating Role of Social Equity and Social Trust.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, vol. 19, no. 23, 2022, article 15652.

  9. Sagioglou, Christina, and Carola Hommerich. “Perceived Social Exclusion Partially Accounts for Social Status Effects on Subjective Well-Being: A Comparative Study of Japan, Germany, and the United States.” Applied Research in Quality of Life, vol. 19, no. 3, 2024, pp. 1337–63.

  10. John, Melvin, et al. “What You See Is What You Get: The Effect of Perceived Inequality on Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Happiness Studies, vol. 26, no. 6, 2025, article 86.

  11. Ruppel, Emily H., et al. “Distinct Aspects of Human Connection Associated with Subjective Well-Being.” SSM – Mental Health, vol. 2, 2022, article 100143.

  12. Li, Zhonglian, et al. “Social Support Mediates the Relationship between Depression and Subjective Well-Being in Elderly Patients with Chronic Diseases: Evidence from a Survey in Rural Western China.” PLOS ONE, vol. 20, no. 6, 2025, article e0325029.

  13. Lv, Runtian, et al. “Relationship between Social Participation and Life Satisfaction in Community-Dwelling Older Adults: Multiple Mediating Roles of Depression and Cognitive Function.” Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, vol. 117, 2024, article 105233.

  14. Hu, Yuxin, et al. “How and Why Marriage is Related to Subjective Well-Being? Evidence from Chinese Society.” Journal of Family Issues, 23 July 2024. OnlineFirst publication.

  15. He, Qile, et al. “Environmental Greenspace, Subjective Well-Being, and All-Cause Mortality in Elderly Chinese: Association and Mediation Study in a Prospective Cohort.” Environmental Research, vol. 227, 2023, article 115732.

  16. Holy-Hasted, William, and Brendan Burchell. “Does Public Space Have to Be Green to Improve Well-Being? An Analysis of Public Space across Greater London and Its Association to Subjective Well-Being.” Cities, vol. 125, 2022, article 103569.

  17. Lawes, Mario, et al. “Examining Interindividual Differences in Unemployment-Related Changes in Subjective Well-Being: The Role of Psychological Well-Being and Re-Employment Expectations.” European Journal of Personality, vol. 39, no. 1, 2025, pp. 24–45.

  18. Pavlova, Iuliia, et al. “Individual and Contextual Predictors of Young Ukrainian Adults’ Subjective Well-Being during the Russian–Ukrainian War.” Applied Psychology: Health and Well-Being, vol. 16, no. 3, 2024, pp. 886–905.

  19. Rogowska, Aleksandra M., et al. “A Path Model for Subjective Well-Being during the Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Comparative Study among Polish and Ukrainian University Students.” Journal of Clinical Medicine, vol. 11, no. 16, 2022, article 4726.

  20. Varghese, Jithin Sam, et al. “Subjective Social Status Is Associated with Happiness but Not Weight Status or Psychological Distress: An Analysis of Three Prospective Birth Cohorts from Low- and Middle-Income Countries.” Wellbeing, Space and Society, vol. 3, 2022, article 100115.

  21. Wilding, Anna, et al. “Estimating the Heterogeneous Health and Well-Being Returns to Social Participation.” Health Economics, vol. 32, no. 9, 2023, pp. 1921–40.

  22. Xin, Zhongyi, et al. “When Giving Social Support Is Beneficial for Well-Being?” Acta Psychologica, vol. 255, 2025, article 104911.

  23. Xu, Haiping, et al. “Social Trust, Social Capital, and Subjective Well-Being of Rural Residents: Micro-Empirical Evidence Based on the Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS).” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 10, 2023, article 49.

  24. Zangger, Christoph. “Localized Social Capital in Action: How Neighborhood Relations Buffered the Negative Impact of COVID-19 on Subjective Well-Being and Trust.” SSM – Population Health, vol. 21, 2023, article 101307.

  25. Zhang, Wenwen. “Social Capital, Income and Subjective Well-Being: Evidence in Rural China.” Heliyon, vol. 8, no. 1, 2022, article e08705.

Tetiana Ulianova
Department of General and Differential Psychology, South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky, Odesa, Ukraine
ulikta@gmail.com
Oksana Kuznietsova
Department of Psychology, Social Work and Inclusive Education, Odesa Regional Academy of In-Service Education, Odesa, Ukraine
Iryna Vasylenko
Department of General and Differential Psychology, South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky, Odesa, Ukraine
Alona Ohneva
Department of General and Differential Psychology, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K. D. Ushynsky'', Odesa, Ukraine
Olga Tkachenko
Department of General and Differential Psychology, Educational and Research Institute of Psychology and Social Sciences, State Institution “South Ukrainian National Pedagogical University named after K.D. Ushynsky"

How to cite:

Tetiana Ulianova, Oksana Kuznietsova, Iryna Vasylenko, Alona Ohneva, Olga Tkachenko. Subjective Feeling of Happiness and Social Determinants of Quality of Life. Revista Cultura Científica, 2026 Issue 24. pg. 2104-2117.

Publication History

  • Received: 07/07/2026
  • Accepted: 10/10/2026
  • Published: 15/10/2026
Copyright © 2026, Tetiana Ulianova, Oksana Kuznietsova, Iryna Vasylenko, Alona Ohneva, Olga Tkachenko. Published by Revista Cultura Científica. This article is published as open access under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Browse Advance Search