Well-Being and the Pandemic: Trust in People Matters More Than Trust in Institutions

Abstract

Trust is an important correlate of well-being, and it plays an important moderating role against adversity. But does this conclusion also hold during pandemics? We address this question by investigating the role of interpersonal and institutional trust for well-being, as measured by five proxies, during the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. We also examined age and gender differences in the relationship between trust and well-being, and tested the protective role of trust among individuals whose well-being might be at risk during the pandemic. The sample included a total of 5776 Serbian adults (M_age = 37.00 years, 75% female). The results showed that interpersonal trust has a small but significant relationship with well-being, whereas institutional trust has negligible effects. We also found some evidence for the protective role of general interpersonal trust on well-being among individuals with poorer self-rated health and in a poorer financial situation. Our findings confirm the role of interpersonal trust for well-being in times of crisis, and support previous evidence indicating that promoting interpersonal trust should be a core goal of public policy.

Keywords

Trust well-being life satisfaction affect COVID-19 global crisis depression anxiety

Introduction

The current COVID-19 crisis poses significant challenges to human well-being, as it has been accompanied by a number of adverse mental health (Torales et al., 2020) and economic consequences (Bell & Blanchflower, 2020). The research on subjective well-being (SWB) in times of global crises has shown that global negative events might lead to substantial declines in both cognitive (life satisfaction) and affective (positive and negative affect) components of SWB (Gonza & Burger, 2017). An important task for studies which focus on well-being amidst global crises is to understand the determinants of SWB and factors that might mitigate the adverse effects of crisis on SWB (Delle Fave, 2014). The literature on well-being in times of crisis, such as the 2008 recession, has documented that various elements of social capital (defined as norms, values, and shared understanding allowing a social group to cooperate in order to achieve shared goals; OECD, 2001) play an important role in understanding well-being during crisis (Sarracino & Piekałkiewicz, 2021). In particular, trust—a vital element of social capital—has received extensive attention in well-being research in times of crisis (Helliwell et al., 2014), but its role during the COVID-19 pandemic is yet to be understood.

Compared to previous crises, the one induced by COVID-19 is different, as it is the first pandemic of modern times, and extrapolating evidence from previous crises may lead to inaccurate conclusions. We contribute to the literature on well-being in times of crisis by examining the role of trust for SWB during the recent outbreak of COVID-19 in Serbia. More specifically, we check the associations between interpersonal and institutional trust with well-being, as proxied by life satisfaction, depression, positive and negative affect, and anxiety. Additionally, we study how trust–well-being association changes by age and gender, and whether trust has a protective role for the well-being of individuals with poorer self-rated health and in poorer financial situation, that is, people whose well-being is most likely at stake during a crisis.

Trust and subjective well-being

Trust captures “the expectation that another (person, group of persons, organization, institution, government, and so on) will behave in a particular way” (Verducci & Schröer, 2010, pp. 1453–1454), and has been considered a vital prerequisite for social interactions and the backbone of a given society (Gheorghiu et al., 2009). Most definitions of trust include two aspects: interpersonal (or social) and institutional (Sønderskov & Dinesen, 2016). Interpersonal trust captures trusting other people, and includes both trust in personally known individuals, such as close friends and family, and trust in people in general. Institutional trust refers to perceptions that state institutions will act in a fair and effective manner.

Given the social nature of human beings and the role of state institutions in coordinating human behavior, it is no surprise that both interpersonal and institutional trust correlate with SWB, although the coefficient of interpersonal trust is typically stronger (Jovanović, 2016). For example, in a large cross-national study Glatz and Eder (2020) found that social trust had positive effects on SWB both cross-sectionally and over time, whereas the effects of institutional trust on SWB were weaker and held only at a cross-sectional level. Similar findings highlighting the importance of social trust for SWB have been obtained in a number of cross-cultural (e.g., Calvo et al., 2012) and national studies (e.g., Mironova, 2015).

There is also an emerging body of evidence to indicate that trust has positive effects on well-being in times of crisis, such as the 2008 economic crisis (Helliwell et al., 2014), the 2001 Great East Japan Earthquake (Yamamura et al., 2015), and the 2003 SARS crisis (Cheung & Tse, 2008). Although mechanisms linking trust and well-being in time of crisis are not fully understood, it can be assumed that social support is a key mechanism underlying the positive effects of interpersonal trust on well-being (Tokuda et al., 2008), whereas institutional trust might lead to feelings of certainty and security that have a beneficial effect on well-being (Glatz & Eder, 2020).

Furthermore, both institutional and interpersonal trust have been posited to act as protective resources for well-being during and after global crises, such as the 2008 economic crises (Helliwell et al., 2014) and natural disasters such as the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake (Hommerich, 2012). For example, Economou et al. (2014) found that interpersonal and institutional trust had a protective role against depression during the 2011 financial crisis in Greece, whereas Lindström and Giordano (2016) demonstrated the buffering effect of generalized interpersonal trust against psychological ill-being in the United Kingdom during the 2008 financial crisis. Based on these findings, it can be expected that trust buffers the negative impact of a pandemic on SWB, especially for people most at risk, such as those with poorer health and in poorer financial conditions.

The present study

The present study had three main goals. First, we investigated the relationship between two dimensions of trust (institutional and interpersonal) and the various indicators of SWB (life satisfaction, positive affect, negative affect, depression, and anxiety). Based on previous studies, especially those conducted using data from the 2008 economic crisis, we expected that both interpersonal and institutional trust yield significant associations with both cognitive and affective SWB. Furthermore, we expected that the interpersonal trust-SWB associations are stronger than the institutional trust-SWB associations. Following Navarro-Carillo et al. (2018), who suggest that negative personal experiences associated with global crises might lead to a decline in interpersonal trust directed at people in general and an increase in interpersonal trust directed to close people, we also expected that in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, specific interpersonal trust (trust in family and friends) is more important for SWB than general interpersonal trust.

Second, we examined whether the relationships between trust and well-being indicators were moderated by age and gender. We focus on age because previous studies have found that the association between trust and well-being is stronger among older adults than younger adults (Poulin & Haase, 2015). As for gender, we expected that interpersonal trust correlates more strongly with well-being among women than among men because women tend to invest more in social relationships than men and mobilize more social support when in difficulty (Belle, 1987).

Third, we examined whether trust has a protective role for the well-being of people most at risk in times of crisis. Specifically, we investigated whether trust moderated the relationships between well-being and two robust correlates of well-being: self-rated health (Joshanloo & Jovanović, 2021) and self-rated financial status (Demakakos et al., 2008). If trust serves as a coping resource, then it should mitigate the negative effects of poor self-rated health and poor financial situation on well-being during the pandemic.

Methods

Participants and procedure

The sample included a total of 5776 participants (M_age = 37.00 years, SD = 12.62, age range 18–91 years) from Serbia. A socio-demographic summary of the sample is presented in the Supplementary Material (Table A1). We used a convenience sample of participants recruited through Facebook, emails, and news and media portals. Only participants who gave informed consent were included in the study. This study is part of a larger project approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad (Approval code: 202004030928_anOE). The survey was administered online through Google Forms from April 9 to April 13, 2020.

Instruments

Interpersonal and institutional trust were measured with two items each. The interpersonal trust items read as follows: How much do you trust people closest to you (e.g., household members, family, friends)? and How much do you trust people in general? The two institutional trust items read as follows: How much do you trust the Serbian government? and How much do you trust the health care system and physicians? Items were rated on an 11-point Likert-type scale (0 = no trust at all, 10 = trust completely). The correlations between the two interpersonal trust items and the two institutional trust items were .34 (Spearman-Brown reliability estimate = .51) and .61 (Spearman–Brown reliability estimate = .76), respectively, so we analyzed these four items separately.

Life satisfaction was assessed using a single-item question (Thinking about your own life and personal circumstances, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole at the present moment?), rated on an 11-point Likert-type scale (0 = not at all satisfied, 10 = completely satisfied). Single-item life satisfaction measures have been shown to be valid and reliable (e.g., Jovanović & Lazić, 2020).

Positive (PA) and negative affect (NA) were measured with three and five items, respectively. Three PA items (happy, joyful, contented) and three NA items (sad, afraid, angry) were taken from the Scale of Positive and Negative Experience (SPANE; Diener et al., 2010), and two additional items were included in NA scale (tense and worried) to better capture various emotional experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic. Participants were asked how often they felt each emotion over the past seven days, and items were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = very rarely or never, 5 = very often or always). Both PA and NA scale scores showed adequate internal consistency in the present study (α = .91 for PA, α = .82 for NA).

Depression and anxiety symptoms were assessed with four items each, taken from the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scales (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995). Respondents were asked to report how they felt during the past seven days using a 4-point scale (0 = did not apply to me at all, 3 = applied to me very much, or most of the time). The short form of the DASS-21 demonstrated adequate reliability and validity in Serbian samples (Jovanović et al., 2020). In the present study, internal consistency reliabilities for the depression and anxiety scales were .83 and .85, respectively.

Self-rated health was assessed using a single question (How would you rate your current health?), rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Single-item measures of subjective health have been widely used and show good reliability and validity (Bowling, 2005).

Subjective (self-rated) financial situation was measured using a following question: “How would you rate your current financial situation?” rated on a 5-point scale from 1 (poor) to 5 (excellent). Single-item measures of subjective financial situation demonstrated a good validity in previous studies (Williams et al., 2017).

Data analyses

We first examined the associations between trust and well-being using a bivariate Pearson correlation. Second, we used separate ordinary least squares (OLS) multiple regression analyses to examine the contribution of four indicators of trust to five indicators of well-being. In Model 1, no control variables were included, whereas in Model 2 socio-demographic variables were included as control variables. Formally, equation (1) (which includes both Model 1 and 2) is as follows:

y_{i} = α + β_{1} \cdot T R U S T_f a m_{i} + β_{2} \cdot T R U S T_o t h e r s_{i} + β_{3} \cdot T R U S T_g o v_{i} + β_{4} \cdot T R U S T_h e a l t h_{i} + γ \cdot X_{i} + ε

(1)

where

y

stands for five measures of well-being; i stands for individuals; and β₁ - β₄ and γ are coefficients to be estimated. Meanwhile, TRUST _fam, TRUST _others, TRUST _gov, and TRUST _health are the measures of trust in family and friends, trust in others, and trust in the government and in the health care system, respectively; with

X

as the vector of individual control variables and ε as the error term.

Third, we used separate regression analyses with interaction terms (and control variables included) to examine the moderating effects of age and gender in the relationship between trust and well-being (see equation (2)).

y_{i} = α + β_{1} \cdot T R U S T_{i} \cdot V_{i} + β_{2} \cdot TRUS T_{i} + γ_{1} \cdot V_{i} + γ_{2} \cdot X_{i} + ε

(2)

where y is the dependent variable (life satisfaction, PA, NA, depression, and anxiety, respectively), TRUST is a vector including the four measures of trust, V stands for the two moderating variables: gender (a dummy variable set to 1 if respondent is a woman, 0 otherwise) and age (a discrete variable reporting respondent’s age), and β₁ and β₂ are two vectors including the coefficients of the four measures of trust. The remaining features are as in equation (1).

Finally, we examined the moderating effects of trust (four measures) in the relationship between self-rated health and financial situation, and well-being using two separate sets of OLS regressions with interaction terms (and the same control variables included in equation 1). Formally, the model (equation (3)) is as follows:

$y_{i} = α + β_{1} \cdot I N D E P_{i} \cdot TRUS T_{i} + β_{2} \cdot I N D E P_{i} + γ_{1} \cdot T R U S T_{i} + γ_{2} \cdot X_{i} + ε$
(3)
where y is the dependent variable (life satisfaction, PA, NA, depression, and anxiety, respectively), INDEP stands for self-reported health or financial situation (two separate regressions), and TRUST is a vector of moderating variables including the four measures of trust. The remaining features are as in equation (1).

All variables have been centered prior to creating product terms in the regressions with interaction effects. Significant interactions were plotted using Sibley’s (2008) tool for probing interaction effects in multiple regression. Given the large sample size and the large number of analyses, we used a conservative p level of .001 to minimize type I error.

Results

Descriptive statistics and correlations

Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables are shown in Table 1. Correlation coefficients between trust and well-being indicators were small to medium in magnitude, and in the expected direction. Trust was generally more closely associated with life satisfaction (mean r = |.24|), depression (mean r = |.21|), and PA (mean r = |.21|) than with NA (mean r = |.15|) and anxiety (mean r = |.12|). Furthermore, well-being indicators had generally higher correlations with the two measures of interpersonal trust (for both mean r = |.22|) than with the two measures of institutional trust (for trust in government mean r = |.13|; for trust in health care system mean r = |.17|).
Table 1.
Descriptive statistics and correlations among study variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Trust in government ^-

2. Trust in health care system .61

3. Trust in family and friends .10 .21

4. Trust in people in general .13 .22 .34

5. Positive affect .17 .21 .23 .23

6. Negative affect −.14 −.15 −.15 −.16 −.54

7. Life satisfaction .17 .22 .29 .27 .51 −.34

8. Depression −.12 −.18 −.27 −.26 −.54 .53 −.52

9. Anxiety −.05 −.09 −.17 −.16 −.37 .57 −.25 .49

M 2.45 5.03 8.79 5.08 3.13 2.80 6.71 0.50 0.45

SD 2.87 2.89 1.73 2.28 0.87 0.81 2.25 0.58 0.55

Note: M = mean, SD = standard deviation. All correlations are significant at p < .001.

Predicting well-being from institutional and interpersonal trust

In Model 1 (without control variables), four indicators of trust explained between 4% and 14% of the total variance in well-being (Table 2). Two indicators of interpersonal trust had robust, yet small predictive value for well-being, whereas the effects of institutional trust were nonsignificant or statistically significant, nevertheless negligible in magnitude.
Table 2.
Institutional and interpersonal trust as predictors of well-being.

Model 1 Model 2

PA NA LS D A PA NA LS D A

Trust in government .067^* −.077^* .074^* −.030 .009 .061^* −.082^* .065^* −.048 −.008

Trust in health care system .104^* −.065^* .093^* −.086^* −.049 .060^* −.028 .063^* −.074^* −.025

Trust in family and friends .154^* −.086^* .204^* −.196^* −.123^* .091^* −.041 .132^* −.138^* −.076^*

Trust in people in general .143^* −.111^* .174^* −.169^* −.104^* .138^* −.110^* .136^* −.126^* −.079^*

Gender (1 = female) −.015 .160^* .004 .048^* .121^*

Age −.130^* −.082^* −.073^* −.093^* −.154^*

Age² −.008 −.054 .044 .049 −.004

Education (relative to high school)

Students .004 −.074^* .009 −.035 −.086^*

University degree −.011 −.011 .040 −.035 −.044

PhD or Magister degree −.013 .002 .016 −.008 −.025

Employment (relative to Unemployed pre crisis)

Students .000 .007 .062 −.032 −.028

Employed .001 .021 .090^* −.092^* −.039

Employed, currently not working −.002 .008 .075^* −.065^* −.014

Unemployed, lost job during the crisis .001 .004 −.007 −.005 .009

Retired .006 .018 .053 −.045 −.005

Marital status (relative to married)

Divorced −.032 −.012 −.047^* .003 .008

Cohabiting −.023 .002 −.034 .014 .024

In a relationship −.063^* −.026 −.073^* .017 .012

Widowed −.019 −.017 −.018 .024 −.015

Single −.131^* −.039 −.165^* .107^* .001

Self-rated financial situation .089^* −.050^* .255^* −.086^* .023

Self-rated health .279^* −.318^* .201^* −.277^* −.353^*

R² .10 .05 .14 .12 .04 .23 .19 .31 .23 .17

Note: PA = Positive Affect, NA = Negative Affect, LS = Life Satisfaction, A = Anxiety, D = Depression. R² = proportion of variance explained. Standardized regression coeffients are shown in Table.

*p < .001

A regression model including trust indicators and socio-demographic variables (Model 2) explained between 17% and 31% of the total variance in well-being. After controlling for socio-demographic variables, indicators of institutional trust remained nonsignificant or significant, nevertheless negligible predictors of well-being. On the other hand, trust in people in general was a significant predictor of all well-being indicators, whereas trust in family and friends had significant associations with all measures of well-being, except NA. These results indicate that in our sample SWB is more closely related to interpersonal trust than institutional trust.

Do gender and age moderate the relationship between trust and well-being?

Three separate moderated regression analyses were conducted to test the moderating roles of gender, age, and squared age in the relationship between the four indicators of trust and well-being (see Table A2 in the Supplementary Material). Two significant interactive effects were registered: (1) the interaction effect of gender and trust in people in general is negatively correlated with anxiety (β = −.095, p < .001); and (2) the interaction effect of age and trust in people in general positively correlated with life satisfaction (β = .039, p < .001). Plotting the general trust in people-gender (see Figure 1 in the Supplementary Material) and general trust in people-age interactions (see Figure 2 in the Supplementary Material) indicated that the association between trust in people in general and anxiety was stronger among females than among males (i.e., female anxiety decreases with increasing trust in people in general), and that the association between trust in people in general and life satisfaction was stronger among older individuals (i.e., older participants reporting lower trust in people in general experience lower life satisfaction than younger adults reporting low trust in people in general).

Does trust moderate the relationship between self-rated health and well-being, and self-rated financial situation and well-being?

The results of analyses examining the protective role of trust (see Table A3 in the Supplementary Material) showed that trust in people in general moderated the associations between self-rated health and depression (β = .054, p < .001), and between self-rated financial situation and life satisfaction (β = −.056, p < .001). Plotting these interactions showed that trust in people in general had a protective role among individuals with poorer self-rated health (Figure 3 in the Supplementary Material) and among individuals in a poorer self-rated financial situation (Figure 4 in the Supplementary Material). The remaining interactions were not statistically significant at p < .001.

Discussion

The present study investigated the associations between two types of trust (interpersonal and institutional) and five indicators of well-being (positive affect, negative affect, life satisfaction, depression, and anxiety) during the outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia. We also examined the trust–well-being associations across age and gender, and investigated the moderating role of trust in the associations between self-rated health and well-being, and between self-rated financial situation and well-being.

Descriptive statistics indicate that the level of trust in family and friends during the COVID-19 pandemic in Serbia is high (8.79 on a scale from 0 to 10), trust in people in general and in the health care system are moderate (5.08 and 5.03, respectively), whereas trust in government is very low (2.45). These results are partially in line with the findings of previous studies (Eurofound, 2019), which showed that levels of trust in people in general and the government in Serbia are generally low. However, it is impossible at present to establish whether this difference is a result of the COVID-19 pandemic or the result of changes in people’s preferences and attitudes toward others.

Our results showed that interpersonal trust (trust in close people and people in general) is a stronger predictor of both positive and negative indicators of well-being than institutional trust (trust in government and health care system). More specifically, higher interpersonal trust was associated with higher levels of well-being, whereas institutional trust had generally weak or nonsignificant associations with well-being. These findings are in line with previous research examining the relationship between trust and well-being in Serbia (Jovanović, 2016). The critical role of social trust for well-being has been emphasized by Helliwell et al. (2018), who argue that high social trust alleviates the negative psychological effects of adversity and leads to a higher perceived availability of protective resources. In particular, we found that the well-being of people who report high trust in others is less strongly associated to financial conditions than among people with low trust. This evidence lends support to previous studies showing that trust in others and material concerns are substitutes in people’s well-being (Bartolini et al., 2019).

The association between trust in others and well-being does not change substantially by socio-demographic characteristics, such as age and gender. However, we found that women reporting higher levels of general trust in people experienced substantially lower levels of anxiety than women reporting lower levels of general trust in people. This finding supports the protective role of general trust in people for women’s mental health during the period of the pandemic, and corroborates previous studies showing that low social support has a more detrimental effect on women’s well-being than that of men (e.g., Lee et al., 2018). In addition, we found that the relationship between general trust in people and life satisfaction was stronger among older adults than among younger adults, supporting the findings of previous studies (Poulin & Haase, 2015). As argued by Li and Fung (2013), older adults prioritize emotional connectedness with other people due to a limited time perspective, and interpersonal trust might act as a coping strategy among older adults and provide the feeling of security and safety in the context of limitations in physical and cognitive functioning.

The examination of the role of trust for well-being among individuals expected to be at greater risk of low well-being during the pandemic (individuals with poorer self-rated health and financial situation) indicated that institutional trust did not serve as a protective factor for well-being, whereas some evidence was found for the protective role of interpersonal trust. High general trust in people has been shown to buffer the adverse effects of poor self-rated health on depression, as well as adverse effects of a poor self-rated financial situation on life satisfaction. These findings indicate the importance of trust as a resource that fosters resilience in the face of adversity (Cacioppo et al., 2011) and as a way of dealing with uncertainty (Frederiksen, 2014). We did not find evidence for the protective role of institutional trust, although in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic one might expect that trust in institutions not only helps build social cohesion and solidarity, but also might provide a sense of security. For example, Arampatzi et al. (2019) found that the high quality of governance buffered the adverse effects of the 2008 recession on SWB, probably through generating trust and providing a safety net. Although we did not find evidence for the buffering role of institutional trust, this finding might be limited to the Serbian context and future studies should investigate whether the role of institutional trust for well-being in Serbia differs compared to other countries (Glatz & Eder, 2020).

Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, our sample was not representative of the Serbian population, which limits the generalizability of our findings. Second, we used a cross-section data, so causal relationships between trust and well-being could not be tested. Third, we included a limited number of trust indicators and relied on a single-item measures of trust. Thus, future studies should include multi-item measures of trust to yield a more robust findings. Finally, as our data was restricted to a single country, cross-cultural data is needed to evaluate the role of trust during the COVID-19 pandemic across cultures.

Supplemental Material

sj-pdf-1-prx-10.1177_00332941211061692 – Supplemental Material for Well-Being and the Pandemic: Trust in People Matters More Than Trust in Institutions

Supplemental Material, sj-pdf-1-prx-10.1177_00332941211061692 for Well-Being and the Pandemic: Trust in People Matters More Than Trust in Institutions in Coping Styles by Veljko Jovanović, Francesco Sarracino, Milica Lazić and Vesna Gavrilov-Jerković in Psychological Reports

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9
1. Trust in government	^-
2. Trust in health care system	.61
3. Trust in family and friends	.10	.21
4. Trust in people in general	.13	.22	.34
5. Positive affect	.17	.21	.23	.23
6. Negative affect	−.14	−.15	−.15	−.16	−.54
7. Life satisfaction	.17	.22	.29	.27	.51	−.34
8. Depression	−.12	−.18	−.27	−.26	−.54	.53	−.52
9. Anxiety	−.05	−.09	−.17	−.16	−.37	.57	−.25	.49
M	2.45	5.03	8.79	5.08	3.13	2.80	6.71	0.50	0.45
SD	2.87	2.89	1.73	2.28	0.87	0.81	2.25	0.58	0.55

	Model 1	Model 2
Trust in government	.067^*	−.077^*	.074^*	−.030	.009	.061^*	−.082^*	.065^*	−.048	−.008
Trust in health care system	.104^*	−.065^*	.093^*	−.086^*	−.049	.060^*	−.028	.063^*	−.074^*	−.025
Trust in family and friends	.154^*	−.086^*	.204^*	−.196^*	−.123^*	.091^*	−.041	.132^*	−.138^*	−.076^*
Trust in people in general	.143^*	−.111^*	.174^*	−.169^*	−.104^*	.138^*	−.110^*	.136^*	−.126^*	−.079^*
Gender (1 = female)						−.015	.160^*	.004	.048^*	.121^*
Age						−.130^*	−.082^*	−.073^*	−.093^*	−.154^*
Age²						−.008	−.054	.044	.049	−.004
Education (relative to high school)
Students						.004	−.074^*	.009	−.035	−.086^*
University degree						−.011	−.011	.040	−.035	−.044
PhD or Magister degree						−.013	.002	.016	−.008	−.025
Employment (relative to Unemployed pre crisis)
Students						.000	.007	.062	−.032	−.028
Employed						.001	.021	.090^*	−.092^*	−.039
Employed, currently not working						−.002	.008	.075^*	−.065^*	−.014
Unemployed, lost job during the crisis						.001	.004	−.007	−.005	.009
Retired						.006	.018	.053	−.045	−.005
Marital status (relative to married)
Divorced						−.032	−.012	−.047^*	.003	.008
Cohabiting						−.023	.002	−.034	.014	.024
In a relationship						−.063^*	−.026	−.073^*	.017	.012
Widowed						−.019	−.017	−.018	.024	−.015
Single						−.131^*	−.039	−.165^*	.107^*	.001
Self-rated financial situation						.089^*	−.050^*	.255^*	−.086^*	.023
Self-rated health						.279^*	−.318^*	.201^*	−.277^*	−.353^*
R²	.10	.05	.14	.12	.04	.23	.19	.31	.23	.17

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Veljko Jovanović

Supplementary Material

Supplementary material for this article is available online.

Author Biographies

Veljko Jovanović is an Associate Professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. His research focuses on the cross-cultural measurement of subjective well-being and on understanding well-being at the individual and societal levels. He also has a strong interest in theoretical and critical psychology.

Francesco Sarracino is senior economist at STATEC, the national institute of statistics of Luxembourg. His work aims at identifying policies to make economic growth compatible with people's well-being and, ultimately, to pursue socially and environmentally sustainable development. He is a member of the World Wellbeing Panel, and of the board of directors of the International Society for Quality of Life Studies. His works have been published in journals such as Oxford Economic Papers, World Development, Ecological Economics, Journal of Happiness Studies, Journal of Business Ethics, and Applied Research in Quality of Life.

Milica Lazić currently works as a Research Associate at the Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. In addition, she is employed in a postdoc position within the Innovative Immunization Hubs project founded by the European Union's Health Program (2021-2024). She has conducted a number of studies on subjective well-being, resilience, and cross-cultural psychology, and has over 30 publications on these topics. She is also an expert in implementing complex statistical methods.

Vesna Gavrilov-Jerković is a full time professor at the Department of Psychology, University of Novi Sad, Serbia. She teaches courses in the field of clinical assessment, psychotherapy, health psychology, psychological models of behavior change, and resilience. She is especially interested in the application of psychosocial models of mental health, and she aims to improve institutional and non-institutional care, and to provide support to people with complex psychosocial difficulties. Her research interests include positive expectations, well-being, resilience, and mechanisms of therapeutic and behavior change.

References

Arampatzi

Burger

M. J.

Stavropoulos

Van Oort

F. G.

(2019). Subjective well-being and the 2008 recession in European regions: The moderating role of quality of governance. International Journal of Community Well-Being, 2(2), 111–133. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42413-019-00022-0

Bartolini

Piekalkiewicz

Sarracino

(2019). A Social Cure for Social Comparisons. Department of Economics University of Siena 797. Department of Economics, University of Siena.

Bell

D. N.

Blanchflower

D. G.

(2020). US and UK labour markets before and during the Covid-19 crash. National Institute Economic Review, 252, R52–R69. https://doi.org/10.1017/nie.2020.14

Belle

(1987). Gender differences in the social moderators of stress. In Barnett

R. C.

Biener

Baruch

G. K.

(Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 257–277). Free Press.

Bowling

(2005). Just one question: If one question works, why ask several? Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 59(5), 342–345. https://doi.org/10.1136/jech.2004.021204

Cacioppo

J. T.

Reis

H. T.

Zautra

A. J.

(2011). Social resilience: The value of social fitness with an application to the military. American Psychologist, 66(1), 43–51. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021419

Calvo

Zheng

Kumar

Olgiati

Berkman

(2012). Well-being and social capital on planet earth: cross-national evidence from 142 countries. Plos One, 7(8), e42793. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0042793

Cheung

C. K.

Tse

J. W. L.

(2008). Institutional trust as a determinant of anxiety during the SARS crisis in Hong Kong. Social Work in Public Health, 23(5), 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/19371910802053224

Delle Fave

(2014). Well-being in times of crisis: Interdisciplinary evidence and policy implications. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 119–123. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9499-2

10.

Demakakos

Nazroo

Breeze

Marmot

(2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67(2), 330–340. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.038

11.

Diener

Wirtz

Tov

Kim-Prieto

Choi

D.-W.

Oishi

Biswas-Diener

(2010). New well-being measures: Short scales to assess flourishing and positive and negative feelings. Social Indicators Research, 97(2), 143–156. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9493-y

12.

Economou

Madianos

Peppou

L.E.

Souliotis

Patelakis

Stefanis

(2014). Cognitive social capital and mental illness during economic crisis: a nationwide population-based study in Greece. Social Science & Medicine, 100, 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.11.006

13.

Eurofound . (2019). Life and society in the EU candidate countries, European Quality of Life 2016 series. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

14.

Gheorghiu

M. A.

Vignoles

V. L.

Smith

P. B.

(2009). Beyond the United States and Japan: Testing Yamagishi’s emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72(4), 365–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250907200408

15.

Glatz

Eder

(2020). Patterns of trust and subjective well-being across Europe: New insights from repeated cross-sectional analyses based on the European Social Survey 2002-2016. Social Indicators Research, 148(2), 417–439. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-019-02212-x

16.

Gonza

Burger

(2017). Subjective well-being during the 2008 economic crisis: Identification of mediating and moderating factors. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18(6), 1763–1797. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9797-y

17.

Helliwell

J. F.

Huang

Wang

(2014). Social capital and well-being in times of crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 15(1), 145–162. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-013-9441-z

18.

Helliwell

J.F.

Huang

Wang

(2018). New evidence on trust and well-being. In Uslaner

E. M.

(Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political and Social Trust (pp. 409–446). Oxford University Press.

19.

Hommerich

(2012). Trust and subjective well-being after the Great East Japan Earthquake, Tsunami and nuclear meltdown: Preliminary results. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 21(1), 46–64. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6781.2012.01169.x

20.

Joshanloo

Jovanović

(2021). Subjective health in relation to hedonic and eudaimonic well-being: Evidence from the Gallup World Poll. Journal of Health Psychology, 26(3), 438–448. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105318820104

21.

Jovanović

(2016). Trust and subjective well-being: The case of Serbia. Personality and Individual Differences, 98(4), 284–288. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2016.04.061

22.

Jovanović

Lazić

(2020). Is longer always better? A comparison of the validity of single-item versus multiple-item measures of life satisfaction. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 15(3), 675–692. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-018-9680-6

23.

Jovanović

Lazić

Gavrilov-Jerković

(2020, September 25-26). Development and validation of an ultra-brief measure of depression and anxiety (DAS-8) [Paper presentation]. 16th Days of Applied Psychology: Faculty of Philosophy, University of Niš, Serbia.

24.

Lee

C. -Y. S.

Goldstein

S. E.

Dik

B. J.

(2018). The relational context of social support in young adults: Links with stress and well-being. Journal of Adult Development, 25(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.577684

25.

Fung

H. H.

(2013). Age differences in trust: An investigation across 38 countries. Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 68(3), 347–355. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbs072

26.

Lindström

Giordano

G. N.

(2016). The 2008 financial crisis: Changes in social capital and its association with psychological wellbeing in the United Kingdom - A panel study. Social Science & Medicine, 153, 71–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2016.02.008

27.

Lovibond

S. H.

Lovibond

P. F.

(1995). Manual for the Depression anxiety stress scales (2nd ed.). Psychology Foundation.

28.

Mironova

A. A.

(2015). Trust, social capital, and subjective individual well-being. Sociological Research, 54(2), 121–133. https://doi.org/10.1080/10610154.2015.1082391

29.

Navarro-Carrillo

Valor-Segura

Lozano

L. M.

Moya

(2018). Do economic crises always undermine trust in others? The case of generalized, interpersonal, and in-group trust. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1955. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01955

30.

OECD . (2001). The well-being of nations: The role of human and social capital. OECD.

31.

Poulin

M. J.

Haase

C. M.

(2015). Growing to trust: Evidence that trust increases and becomes moreimportant for well-being across the life span. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(6), 614–621. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615574301

32.

Sarracino

Piekałkiewicz

(2021). The role of income and social capital for Europeans’ well-being during the 2008 economic crisis. Journal of Happiness Studies, 22(4), 1583–1610. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-020-00285-x

33.

Sibley

C. G.

(2008). Utilities for examining interactions in multiple regression [Computer software]. Auckland: University of Auckland.

34.

Sønderskov

K. M.

Dinesen

P. T.

(2016). Trusting the state, trusting each other? The effect of institutional trust on social trust. Political Behavior, 38(1), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-015-9322-8

35.

Tokuda

Jimba

Yanai

Fujii

Inoguchi

(2008). Interpersonal trust and quality-of-life: A cross-sectional study in Japan. Plos One, 3(12), e3985. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003985

36.

Torales

O’Higgins

Castaldelli-Maia

J. M.

Ventriglio

(2020). The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 66(4), 317–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020764020915212

37.

Verducci

Schröer

(2010). Social trust. In Anheier

H. K.

Toepler

(Eds.), International Encyclopedia of Civil Society (pp. 1453–1458). Springer.

38.

Williams

V. F.

Smith

A. A.

Villanti

A. C.

Rath

J. M.

Hair

E. C.

Cantrell

Lyubov

Vallone

D. M.

(2017). Validity of a subjective financial situation measure to assesssocioeconomic status in US young adults. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 23(5), 487–495. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000468

39.

Yamamura

Tsutsui

Yamane

Powdthavee

(2015). Trust and happiness: Comparative study before and after the Great East Japan Earthquake. Social Indicators Research, 123(3), 919–935. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0767-7

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.26 MB