Skip to Main Content

Social Psychology and Society
2026. Vol. 17, no. 1, 5–22
doi:10.17759/sps.2026170101
ISSN: 2221-1527 / 2311-7052 (online)

The contribution of social cohesion to life satisfaction in Russia

 
Audio is AI-generated
0

,

PDF (RUS)
Online translation in english
GS
Information
in Google Scholar
Metrics

Abstract

Context and relevance. Globalization and digitalization affect different forms of social interaction (e.g., social cohesion). Social cohesion is an important factor of social and psychological well-being. However, previous research focused on the specific components of social cohesion (e.g., interpersonal and institutional trust) without detailed analysis of the complex model and its contribution to life satisfaction. The present study is based on a multilevel model of social cohesion that includes micro- (interpersonal trust, social support, frequency of relationships), meso- (openness, social participation) and macro-levels (system justification and institutional legitimacy).
Objective. To identify the contribution of social cohesion to life satisfaction.
Methods and materials. A total of 955 Russians (45% women, Mage = 36,13, SDage = 11,90) participated in the online survey and completed the questionnaires of social cohesion (e.g., interpersonal trust, social support, frequency of relationships, openness, social participation, system acceptance, and legitimacy of institutions), life satisfaction, and sociodemographic characteristics.
Results. Structural equation modeling results showed that the model had excellent fit to the data (χ2 (309) = 1035, p < 0,001; CFI = 0,941, TLI = 0,933, RMSEA = 0,050 [0,046; 0,053], SRMR = 0,065; R2 = 0,40). Micro- and macro-levels of social cohesion contributed positively to life satisfaction without a corresponding effect for the meso-level. Analysis of the socio-demographic factors demonstrated positive contribution to life satisfaction only for subjective socio-economic status.
Conclusions. The lack of contribution of the meso-level to life satisfaction indicate a low level of civic participation or alternative ways of realization of social relations at the meso-level (through other levels of social relations). The findings emphasize the need for a multilevel analysis of social cohesion and life satisfaction.

General Information

Keywords: social cohesion, life satisfaction, structural equation modeling, interpersonal relationships, group processes

Journal rubric: Empirical Research

Article type: scientific article

DOI: https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2026170101

Funding. This article is an output of a research project implemented as part of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE University).

Received 21.08.2025

Revised 11.11.2025

Accepted

Published

For citation: Lavelina, D.I., Prusova, I.S. (2026). The contribution of social cohesion to life satisfaction in Russia. Social Psychology and Society, 17(1), 5–22. (In Russ.). https://doi.org/10.17759/sps.2026170101

© Lavelina D.I., Prusova I.S., 2026

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

References

  1. Агадуллина, Е.Р., Лавелина, Д.Я. (2023). Вклад оправдания системы в социальную сплоченность. Социальная психология и общество, 14(4), 89–104.
    Agadullina, E.R., Lavelina, D.Y. (2023). The Contribution of the System Justification to Social Cohesion. Social Psychology and Society, 14(4), 89–104. (In Russ.).
  2. Богомолова, Е.В., Галицкая, Е.Г., Кот, Ю.А., Петренко, Е.С. (2017). Повседневность россиян: гражданские и потребительские практики. Мир России. Социология. Этнология, 26(1), 180–197.
    Bogomolova, E., Galitskaya, E., Kot, Yu., Petrenko, E. (2017). Everyday Life of Russians: Civil and Consumer Practices. Mir Rossii, 26(1), 180–197. (In Russ.).
  3. ВЦИОМ (2024, август 21). Доверие в России: мониторинг. ВЦИОМ. https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/doverie-v-rossii-monitoring (дата обращения: 01.06.2025).
    VCIOM (2024, august 21). Trust in Russia: monitoring. VCIOM.. https://wciom.ru/analytical-reviews/analiticheskii-obzor/doverie-v-rossii-monitoring (Accessed: 01.06.2025).
  4. ВЦИОМ (2025). Деятельность общественных институтов. ВЦИОМ. https://wciom.ru/ratings/dejatelnost-obshchestvennykh-institutov/page (дата обращения: 01.06.2025).
    VCIOM (2025). The work of public institutions. VCIOM. https://wciom.ru/ratings/dejatelnost-obshchestvennykh-institutov/page (Accessed: 01.06.2025).
  5. Сариева, И. (2022). Голосование, подписание петиций или уличная политика? Роль оправдания системы и веры в ее стабильность. Психологические исследования, 15(83), 1–18.
    Sarieva, I. (2022). Voting, petition signing or street politics? The role of system justification and faith in system stability. Psychological Studies, 15(83), 1–18. (In Russ.).
  6. Adler, N.E., Epel, E.S., Castellazzo, G., Ickovics, J.R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health psychology, 19(6), 586–592.
  7. Agadullina, E., Ivanov, A., Sarieva, I. (2021). How do Russians perceive and justify the status quo: Insights from adapting the system justification scales. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 717838.
  8. Baltatescu, S. (2009). Differential effects of interpersonal and political trust on happiness and life satisfaction. CINEFOGO Workshop: SSRN, 1952595.
  9. Baumeister, R.F., Leary, M.R. (2017). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Interpersonal development, 57–89.
  10. Bottoni, G., Addeo, F. (2024). The effect of social cohesion on subjective individual quality of life in European countries. Social Indicators Research, 171(3), 1111–1133.
  11. Bottoni, G. (2018). Validation of a social cohesion theoretical framework: a multiple group SEM strategy. Quality & Quantity, 52(3), 1081–1102.
  12. Brandt, M.J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status–legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of personality and social psychology, 104(5), 765–785.
  13. Chuang, Y.C., Chuang, K.Y., Yang, T.H. (2013). Social cohesion matters in health. International journal for equity in health, 12, 1–12.
  14. Chiang, Y.C., Chu, M., Zhao, Y., Li, X., Li, A., Lee, C.Y., Hsueh, S.C., Zhang, S. (2021). Influence of subjective/objective status and possible pathways of young migrants’ life satisfaction and psychological distress in China. Frontiers in psychology, 12, 612317.
  15. Delhey, J., Boehnke, K., Dragolov, G., Ignácz, Z.S., Larsen, M., Lorenz, J., Koch, M. (2018). Social cohesion and its correlates: A comparison of Western and Asian societies. Comparative sociology, 17(3-4), 426–455.
  16. Delhey, J., Dragolov, G. (2016). Happier together. Social cohesion and subjective well‐being in Europe. International Journal of Psychology, 51(3), 163–176.
  17. Dragolov, G., Ignácz, Z., Lorenz, J., Delhey, J., Boehnke, K. (2013). Social cohesion radar measuring common ground: An international comparison of social cohesion methods report. Bertelsmann Stiftung. http://aei.pitt.edu/id/eprint/74134
  18. European Social Survey. (2013). ESS Round 6 Module on Personal and Social Wellbeing. Final Module in Template. Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University London.
  19. European Social Survey. (2016). ESS Round 8 Module on Climate Change and Energy. Question Design Final Module in Template. ESS ERIC Headquarters c/o City University London.
  20. Evans, M.D., Kelley, J. (2004). Subjective social location: Data from 21 nations. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 16(1), 3–38.
  21. Flavin, P., Keane, M.J. (2012). Life satisfaction and political participation: Evidence from the United States. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13, 63–78.
  22. Fonseca, X., Lukosch, S., Brazier, F. (2019). Social cohesion revisited: a new definition and how to characterize it. Innovation: The European journal of social science research, 32(2), 231–253.
  23. Gana, K., Broc, G. (2018). Structural Equation Modeling with lavaan. Wiley-ISTE.
  24. Haerpfer, C., Inglehart, R., Moreno, A., Welzel, C., Kizilova, K., Diez-Medrano, J., Lagos, M., Norris, P., Ponarin, E., Puranen, B. (eds.). (2022). World Values Survey: Round Seven – Country-Pooled Datafile Version 5.0. Madrid, Spain & Vienna, Austria: JD Systems Institute & WVSA Secretariat. https://doi.org/10.14281/18241.24
  25. Henry, P.J., Saul, A. (2006). The development of system justification in the developing world. Social Justice Research, 19, 365–378.
  26. Jen, M.H., Sund, E.R., Johnston, R., Jones, K. (2010). Trustful societies, trustful individuals, and health: An analysis of self-rated health and social trust using the World Value Survey. Health & place, 16(5), 1022–1029.
  27. Jost, J.T. (2020). A theory of system justification. Harvard University Press.
  28. Jost, J.T., Becker, J., Osborne, D., Badaan, V. (2017). Missing in (collective) action: Ideology, system justification, and the motivational antecedents of two types of protest behavior. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(2), 99–108.
  29. Kay, A.C., Jost, J.T. (2003). Complementary justice: effects of "poor but happy" and "poor but honest" stereotype exemplars on system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive. Journal of personality and social psychology, 85(5), 823–837.
  30. Langer, A., Stewart, F., Smedts, K., Demarest, L. (2017). Conceptualising and measuring social cohesion in Africa: Towards a perceptions-based index. Social Indicators Research, 131, 321–343.
  31. Leininger, J., Burchi, F., Fiedler, C., Mross, K., Nowack, D., Von Schiller, A., Sommer, C., Strupat, C., Ziaja, S. (2021). Social cohesion: A new definition and a proposal for its measurement in Africa (No. 31/2021). Discussion Paper.
  32. McCracken, M. (1998, October). Social cohesion and macroeconomic performance. Centre for the Study of Living standards (CSLS), Conference: The State of Living Standards and the Quality of life.
  33. Navarro-Carrillo, G., Valor-Segura, I., Lozano, L.M., Moya, M. (2018). Do economic crises always undermine trust in others? The case of generalized, interpersonal, and in-group trust. Frontiers in psychology, 9, 1955.
  34. (2025). Life Satisfaction. OECD Better Life Index. https://www.oecdbetterlifeindex.org/topics/life-satisfaction/ (Accessed: 01.06.2025).
  35. Owuamalam, C.K., Rubin, M., Spears, R. (2019). Revisiting 25 years of system motivation explanation for system justification from the perspective of social identity model of system attitudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58(2), 362–381.
  36. Ponizovskiy, V., Arant, R., Larsen, M., Boehnke, K. (2020). Sticking to common values: Neighbourhood social cohesion moderates the effect of value congruence on life satisfaction. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 30(5), 530–546.
  37. Prusova, I.S., Ananyeva, O.A. (2025). Testing the expanded dual chamber model of collective action to help socially disadvantaged groups. Current Psychology, 44(10), 8304–8321.
  38. Putnam, R.D., Nanetti, R.Y., Leonardi, R. (1994). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton University Press.
  39. Rajkumar, R.P. (2023). Cultural values and changes in happiness in 78 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic: An analysis of data from the world happiness reports. Frontiers in psychology, 14, 1090340.
  40. Rosseel, Y. (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation modeling. Journal of statistical software, 48(2), 1–36. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v048.i02
  41. Schiefer, D., Van der Noll, J. (2017). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research, 132, 579–603.
  42. Schmeets, H., Te Riele, S. (2014). Declining social cohesion in the Netherlands?. Social Indicators Research, 115, 791–812.
  43. Schmeets, H. (2012). Social Cohesion: an integrated empirical approach. Contemporary theoretical perspectives on the study of social cohesion and social capital, 127–142.
  44. Sen, A. (2017). Well-being, agency and freedom the dewey lectures 1984. In Justice and the capabilities approach (pp. 3–55). Routledge.
  45. Tok, T.Q.H., Woods, O., Kong, L. (2024). What is Beyond Measurement for Social Cohesion? Social Indicators Research, 175(1), 109–127.
  46. Wichowsky, A. (2019). Civic life in the divided metropolis: social capital, collective action, and residential income segregation. Urban Affairs Review, 55(1), 257–287.
  47. Williams, A.J., Maguire, K., Morrissey, K., Taylor, T., Wyatt, K. (2020). Social cohesion, mental wellbeing and health-related quality of life among a cohort of social housing residents in Cornwall: a cross sectional study. BMC public health, 20(1), 985.
  48. Yassim, M. (2019). The wicked problem of social cohesion: moving ahead. Journal of Social Marketing, 9(4), 507–521.

Information About the Authors

Daria I. Lavelina, Junior Researcher at the Laboratory for Psychology of Social Inequality, HSE University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2816-7673, e-mail: dlavelina@hse.ru

Irina S. Prusova, Candidate of Science (Psychology), Head of the Laboratory for Psychology of Social Inequality, Associate Professor of Department of Psychology, HSE University, Moscow, Russian Federation, ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9298-2408, e-mail: iprusova@hse.ru

Contribution of the authors

Daria Y. Lavelina — conceptualisation and development of research design; data collection and analysis and interpretation of the results; annotation, writing and design of the manuscript; planning of the research.
Irina S. Prusova — conceptualisation and development of research design; data collection and interpretation of the results; annotation, writing and design of the manuscript; control over the research.
All authors participated in the discussion of the results and approved the final text of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethics statement

All participants completed the form of informed consent before their involvement.

Metrics

 Web Views

Whole time: 4
Previous month: 0
Current month: 4

 PDF Downloads

Whole time: 0
Previous month: 0
Current month: 0

 Total

Whole time: 4
Previous month: 0
Current month: 4