ArticleFrontiers in psychology2026
Associations of perceived natural and social environments with subjective well-being among Chinese older adults: a cross-sectional study of gender differences.
Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Environmental psychology research is characterized by a divergence between two core theoretical orientations. The stress reduction theory posits a direct correlation between perceived natural environment and individual well-being; the social ecology theory, in contrast, maintains that the correlation between perceived social environment and subjective well-being is contingent upon social behavior. However, few studies have systematically compared the differentiated association patterns of these two environment types with older adults' subjective well-being within a unified analytical framework, and integrated examination of gender heterogeneity in such associations remains inadequate. This gap delays theoretical integration and provides limited evidence for gender-sensitive age-friendly community design. Methods: This study used data from the 2021 Chinese General Social Survey (CGSS), yielding 2,929 valid participants aged 60 and above. All core environmental variables were assessed through subjective perception rather than objective exposure. Perceived natural environment focused on negative perceived exposures; perceived social environment covered comprehensive evaluations of neighborhood safety, living convenience, neighborhood mutual assistance, and public services. A structural equation model linking perceived natural environment, perceived social environment, neighborhood interaction, and subjective well-being of older adults was specified. Associations were estimated using the WLSMV estimator. To ensure the validity of gender comparisons, measurement invariance tests were conducted. Common method bias was assessed using the latent method factor approach. Gender heterogeneity was examined through multi-group structural equation modeling. In addition, multiple imputation was performed to handle missing data and to test the robustness of the results against potential bias due to incomplete responses. Results: In the full sample, the total association of perceived social environment with subjective well-being ( Conclusion: This study clarifies the differentiated theoretical patterns of association between perceived natural environment and perceived social environment with older adults' subjective well-being, confirms the gender-specific divergence in these associations, and provides localized empirical evidence for developing a gender-sensitive, precision-oriented environmental support system for age-friendly communities in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.