Abstract
Background
This study applies the scenario method to investigate the impact of a child-friendly social environment on children’s life satisfaction and further considers the role of virtue of humanity in light of the growing emphasis on positive psychological education.
Methods
In a Chinese city dedicated to child-friendly initiatives, three schools located in economically developed districts were selected for the study. Within these schools, two to four classes from grades three through six were randomly selected. Within each grade, classes were randomly assigned to either a positive or a negative scenario group. Baseline equivalence between groups was tested, followed by t-tests and linear regression models to assess the effects of social environment. Interaction effect analysis and mediation analysis using the bootstrap method were used to examine the role of the virtue of humanity.
Results
The demographic characteristics of the positive and negative groups were largely comparable, except for differences in co-residence with grandparents. The baseline class climate was higher in the negative group (t = 3.60, p < 0.001). After the scenario simulation trial, children in the positive scenario group reported significantly greater life satisfaction than those in the negative group (t = -23.15, p < 0.001). After adjusting for covariate variables and virtue of humanity, positive social environment contributed to better life satisfaction (B = 2.75, β = 0.26, p < 0.001), and 50.61% of the effect of social environmental scenarios on life satisfaction was mediated by virtue of humanity (indirect effect = 2.81, 95% CI: 2.56—3.07). Kindness, sincerity, and social vitality each moderated the association between social environment and life satisfaction. The grade-level subgroup analysis indicated that a child-friendly social environment was consistently positively related to children’s life satisfaction, but the role of the virtue of humanity varied across grades.
Conclusions
The findings highlight the potential benefits of a child-friendly social environment for children’s life satisfaction through a scenario simulation trial. The virtue of humanity may play both mediating and moderating roles in the relationship between the social environment and children’s life satisfaction. Thus, enhancing children’s life satisfaction requires not only fostering a supportive social environment but also integrating positive psychological education.
Supplementary Information
The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40359-026-04088-2.
Keywords: Child-friendly city, Social environment, Scenario simulation trial, Life satisfaction, Virtue of humanity
Introduction
Enhancing children’s life satisfaction contributes to their social competence, emotional stability, and long-term productivity, ultimately benefiting the broader community [1]. Environmental psychology suggests that environmental factors play a critical role in shaping a person's mental health [2, 3]. Many countries advocate for the promotion of a child-friendly environment to enhance children's life satisfaction [4]. Currently, a variety of guidelines, toolkits, and handbooks have been developed and disseminated by governments and organizations worldwide to foster child-friendly cities [5–7]. The effectiveness of child-friendly physical environments on children’s well-being has been widely examined [8–10]. However, the actual impact of a child-friendly social environment on the well-being of individual children remains underexplored, particularly in developing countries.
The environment in which children live during childhood exerts long-term influence on their development and growth [11–13]. Ecological systems theory provides a theoretical framework for understanding how different environmental contexts shape children’s development. This theory conceptualizes the environments that influence human development into the microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem [2]. The microsystem mainly consists of the family (parents, siblings), the school (teachers, peers), and the community (neighbours). Several empirical studies have demonstrated the association between microenvironment and children's life satisfaction. For instance, one study found that fostering positive family and peer environments contributes to children's satisfaction [14]. Mitigating school bullying and enhancing classroom friendliness can further enhance children’s life satisfaction [15, 16]. Other scholars also confirmed the correlation between children’s satisfaction and their sense of neighborhood belonging [17]. Although most existing studies have concentrated on specific aspects of the micro-environment, building a child-friendly social environment requires a multidimensional perspective. Therefore, it is essential to evaluate the impact of a friendly social environment across families, schools, and communities on children’s well-being before the widespread implementation of the child-friendly city policy.
Within Chinese cultural contexts, it is particularly important to consider the role of virtues in shaping the relationship between the social environment and well-being. Firstly, collectivism in China is deeply rooted in historical, cultural, and social contexts, emphasizing community and family over individualism. The external social environments, such as social norms, values, and collective actions, can influence individuals’ well-being and the development, cultivation, and maintenance of virtues [18]. Secondly, with the popularization of positive psychology in China, researchers have increasingly focused on the virtues and positive traits of individuals, especially those dimensions that can significantly influence children's life satisfaction [19]. Among these positive traits, love, kindness, social vitality, and sincerity are particularly important because of their strong links to the virtue of humanity and to interactions with others [20]. Several studies have explored the positive influence of these traits on children’s well-being [21–24]. Thirdly, the Confucian tradition of "self-cultivation and virtue development" shapes the formation of well-being and life satisfaction. The Confucian mental health model emphasizes that well-being will flourish when the emotional balance and harmony of the individual and society are realized [25]. The association between the virtue of humanity and children’s well-being may vary depending on the surrounding social environment, with supportive and friendly environments amplifying its positive effect [21, 22]. Nevertheless, the mechanism of personal virtues on the relationship between social environment and life satisfaction remains inadequately understood. Thus, this study examined how scenario-based social environments influence life satisfaction and further analysed the role of personal virtue of humanity.
Theoretical framework
Social environment and personal virtues are critical determinants of children's life satisfaction. The social cognitive theory (SCT) focuses on the role of social environment (family, peers, community norms, and modeling) and suggests that personal factors could interact with environmental factors to shape individuals’ well-being [26, 27]. Some studies further demonstrate that personal factors exert direct effects on children’s and adolescents’ life satisfaction and may additionally function as mediators or moderators between family or school environments and life satisfaction [28–30]. In parallel, the Character Strengths Framework emphasizes the direct link between virtues and life satisfaction while acknowledging that social context influences the development and expression of virtues. Character strengths are closely associated with children’s well-being and life satisfaction and are themselves shaped by the social environments in which children are embedded. That is, the virtues that children possess influence how they interpret and respond to their surroundings [31–33]. Supportive social environments—such as families, schools, and communities—enable the development and expression of positive traits, which in turn facilitate positive subjective experiences [34]. Drawing on these perspectives, this study examined the effects of microsystem social environments on children’s life satisfaction and further explored the role of virtues.
Current study
This study focused on the relationships among social environment, virtue of humanity, and life satisfaction (Supplementary Material Fig. S1). We hypothesized that friendly social environment would contribute higher life satisfaction among children (Hypothesis 1); that virtues of humanity—love, kindness, sincerity, and social vitality—would positively influence children’s life satisfaction (Hypothesis 2); that the short-term effect of the microsystem social environments on life satisfaction would be mediated by the virtue of humanity (Hypothesis 3) and that the virtue of humanity would also moderate this relationship (Hypothesis 4). To verify the hypotheses, the present study employed a scenario simulation approach to explore how exposure to child-friendly versus unfriendly social environments was associated with children’s life satisfaction, while accounting for the role of the virtue of humanity. Conducting effective evaluations after the full-scale implementation of child-friendly social environment policies often involves substantial human, financial, and time costs. The scenario simulation method represents a more cost-effective and efficient evaluation approach before large-scale policy rollout [35]. This study used this approach to provide valuable insights for governments and child welfare organizations in understanding the potential benefits of child-friendly social environments and in optimizing the design of such environments.
Methods
Study design
Scenario simulation has been widely employed before policy implementation to predict effectiveness and potential risks, optimize proposed programs, verify feasibility, etc. In this study, opposing scenarios were developed within family, school, and community contexts. The positive scenario group simulates a child-friendly social environment, whereas the negative scenario group represents a context characterized by an unfriendly social environment. The audio material for the implementation of positive and negative scenarios was designed based on existing literature defining child-friendly social environment, relevant policy, and a child-friendly social environment assessment tool derived from children’s group focus interview (Supplementary Material Table S1 and Table S2) [21, 22, 36, 37].
The audio content for the positive scenario group was structured around three dimensions: (1) Family: children live in a supportive social environment characterized by adequate family support, a strong sense of security, healthy communication, harmonious interactions, sufficient parental companionship, mutual respect among members, shared responsibilities, and the absence of family conflict. (2) School: children study in an environment where teachers refrain from corporal punishment and verbal aggression, teacher–student relationships are harmonious, peer relationships are close, schools provide sufficient support, the campus atmosphere is inclusive and open, the learning environment is positive and student-centered, safety for both teachers and students is ensured, creativity and innovation are encouraged, and school–family communication is constructive. (3) Community: children reside in a community that values their participation, fosters harmonious and friendly neighborly relations, promotes cohesion, ensures a strong sense of safety, encourages mutual respect among residents, and nurtures a shared sense of responsibility among both adults and children. The negative scenarios, by contrast, simulated adverse conditions across family, school, and community settings.
The trial was carried out in a smart classroom of each school. The positive and negative questionnaires were used to conduct a scenario simulation trial. Participants were randomly assigned by class to either the positive scenario group or the negative scenario group. That is, each child experienced only one scenario. Before the scenario simulation trial, students were asked to report on the friendliness of their class climate to establish baseline information. Subsequently, the investigators played an audio clip depicting either a positive or a negative scenario. Participants were instructed to imagine themselves within the specific scenario and then complete a questionnaire assessing their life satisfaction and the virtue of humanity. Specifically, children in the positive scenario group were asked to envision living in such a city before responding to the questions, whereas those in the negative scenario group were informed that a child-friendly social environment had not yet been achieved and then completed the questionnaire. Finally, participants provided demographic information.
Participants
In this study, three primary schools in a city in China were selected for a scenario simulation trial, with participants being third-to sixth-grade students. Based on the size of each school, two or four classes were randomly selected per grade, and all students in the selected classes were included in the test. Participants were then randomly assigned to either the positive or negative scenario group. In total, 1,550 students participated, with a mean age of 10.33 ± 1.12 years. Specifically, 786 students were assigned to the positive scenario group (mean age = 10.34 ± 1.14 years) and 764 to the negative scenario group (mean age = 10.31 ± 1.10 years). This study was approved by the school authorities, and informed consent was obtained from both parents and students.
Measurements
The questionnaire used in the scenario simulation experiment comprised three sections. The first section assessed children’s perceptions of the friendliness of class climate. The second section measured children’s self-reported life satisfaction and the virtue of humanity. The third section collected children’s demographic information.
Class climate
The class climate was evaluated using seven items covering overall class climate, teacher–student relationships, peer relationships, cooperative and proactive learning atmosphere, non-violent environment, climate of innovation, and the degree of inclusiveness and respect. Each item was rated on a five-point Likert scale, with 1 indicating “strongly disagree,” and 5 indicating “strongly agree.” The item scores were summed to yield a total class climate score, with higher scores reflecting a more child-friendly class climate. The scale demonstrated good internal consistency, with a Cronbach’s α of 0.86.
Life satisfaction
Children’s life satisfaction was assessed using seven items from the Chinese Children’s Subjective Well-Being Scale [14]. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = agree, 4 = strongly agree). This dimension demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.90).
Virtue of humanity
The virtue of humanity is associated with caring for others and interpersonal interactions, encompassing multiple character strengths such as love, kindness, sincerity, and social vitality [20, 38]. The measurement of love, kindness, and sincerity within the virtue of humanity was based on 12 items drawn from the Chinese Virtues Questionnaire (CVQ), which consists of 96 items in total, rated on a 5-point scale (1 = “not at all true” to 5 = “very true”) [39]. The capacity to love and be loved was assessed using four items: “There are people around me who care about me as much as they care about themselves and who are concerned about my feelings”, “I can always feel the presence of love in my life”, “I can accept others’ love”, and “Among my neighbors, teachers, and classmates, there are people I truly care about”. Scores for these items were summed, with higher scores indicating a stronger capacity to love and be loved. The Cronbach’s α for this dimension was 0.89. The kindness dimension was assessed with four items: “I enjoy doing small things for my friends”, “I try to cheer up people when they are feeling down”, “I always call my friends to check in when they are sick”, and “I enjoy the feeling of being kind to others”. The internal consistency for this dimension was 0.87 (Cronbach’s α). The sincerity dimension was assessed using four items: (1) I keep my promises; (2) others believe that what I say is true; (3) others trust me because I always keep my word; and (4) others trust me to keep their secrets. The internal consistency, Cronbach’s α for this subscale, was 0.88. Social vitality was measured using the Social Adaptation Scale for Children and Adolescents, developed by Hu Tao [40]. The scale of social vitality includes four items: (1) I am a lively and cheerful person; (2) I am an optimistic person; (3) I have a sense of humor; and (4) I enjoy talking with others. Each item was rated on a 5-point scale (1 = “not at all true” to 5 = “very true”), with higher summed scores indicating greater social vitality. Cronbach’s α for this tool was 0.88. Overall, the scale assessing the virtue of humanity demonstrated satisfactory construct validity (Supplementary Material Table S3).
Demographic characteristics
This study also collected children’s demographic information, including gender (boy/girl), age, and family structure (assessed by whether the child lives with parents, whether the child is an only child, and whether the child lives with grandparents).
Statistical analysis
Descriptive statistics were calculated as means and standard deviations for continuous variables and as frequencies and percentages for categorical variables. Baseline information was compared between the two groups before the trial. Independent samples t-tests were conducted to examine group differences in continuous variables, such as age and class climate. Chi-square tests were used to assess group differences in categorical variables, such as gender and family structure. Following the scenario simulation trial, independent-samples t-tests were employed to compare children’s life satisfaction and the virtue of humanity between the positive and negative scenario groups. In addition, multiple linear regression models with interaction terms were applied to examine the main and interactive effects of social environment and the virtue of humanity on life satisfaction, both in the overall sample and in subgroups stratified by grade level. Mediation analysis using the bootstrap method was used to test whether the short-term effect of social environment on life satisfaction was mediated by the virtue of humanity, in both the overall sample and grade-level subgroups. For this analysis, 2000 bootstrap samples were drawn with replacement from the original sample to estimate indirect effects and 95% confidence intervals.
In addition, convergent and discriminant validity were used to test the construct validity of the scales. Convergent validity was assessed using Composite Reliability (CR) and Average Variance Extracted (AVE). CR value greater than 0.7 and AVE value greater than 0.5 indicate adequate convergent validity [41–43]. Discriminant validity was assessed by comparing the correlations between each pair of constructs against the square root of the AVEs for these two constructs. The square root of AVE exceeded the Pearson’s correlations with other variables, indicating adequate discriminant validity [42–44]. Statistical analyses were conducted using SAS 9.40.
Quality control
To ensure that children could accurately comprehend the positive and negative scenarios, detailed explanations were provided in the audio materials based on the conceptual definitions and assessment methods for each dimension of the family, school, and community social environments (Supplementary Material Table S1 and Table S2). For example, regarding the subdimension of "family support" in the family environment, the audio for the positive scenario included the following statement: "Your current family support is sufficient. Family members provide you with both material and spiritual support, protect your physical and mental health, and care about your studies and daily life. When you encounter difficulties, they will help, encourage, and comfort you". In the audio of the negative scenario, we used the following statement: "The support your family provides is insufficient. They cannot meet your material and spiritual needs. In your studies and daily life, you need more help, encouragement, and comfort from your family".
Several measures were implemented to ensure the effectiveness of manipulation in the scenario simulation trial. First, after the audio material was played, some students were asked to briefly describe what they had heard to verify their comprehension. If a student’s understanding was incorrect or unclear, the audio was replayed until the scenario content was accurately grasped. Second, to minimize social desirability bias and reduce misunderstandings of the items, investigators repeatedly reminded participants that the survey was based on hypothetical scenarios and that responses should correspond to the positive or negative scenario they had heard. Third, investigators emphasized that personal information was collected solely to verify experimental group assignments and would be strictly protected. Additional quality control procedures included: (1) participants being instructed to read items carefully before responding, and the importance of independent responses being emphasized before, during, and after the survey; (2) all audio and questionnaire instructions being delivered by the same investigator, with one to two trained research assistants assigned to each class to ensure proper implementation; (3) investigators answering children’s questions without guiding responses; (4) investigators monitoring response pace and reminding students who completed the questionnaire too quickly to review items carefully, thereby enhancing response accuracy; and (5) head teachers maintaining order to create a quiet and organized environment;
Results
Descriptive statistics of children’s baseline characteristics
In terms of the baseline information, there was no statistically significant difference in gender distribution between the positive and negative social scenario groups (χ2 = 0.74, P = 0.389) (Table 1). Across all participants, the numbers of third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade students were 408 (26.32%), 426 (27.48%), 420 (27.10%), and 296 (19.10%), respectively, with no significant differences in grade distribution between the positive and negative scenario groups (χ2 = 0.56, P = 0.905). With respect to family structure, the distribution of co-residence with parents and siblings was similar between positive and negative groups. However, the proportion of children living with grandparents was significantly higher in the positive scenario group than in the negative scenario group (χ2 = 4.86, P = 0.028). Before the implementation of the scenario simulation, there was a significant difference in class climate scores between the two groups (t = 3.60, P < 0.001), with students in the negative scenario group reporting higher perceived class climate scores (mean = 27.84, SD = 5.44) than those in the positive scenario group (mean = 26.80, SD = 5.92).
Table 1.
Statistical description results of children’s demographics characteristics in the positive and negative scenario groups
| Variable | Total | Positive Scenario | Negative Scenario | χ2 | P | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (n = 1550) | (n1 = 786) | (n2 = 764) | |||||||
| Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | Frequency | (%) | ||||
| Gender | 0.74 | 0.389 | |||||||
| Boys | 778 | 50.19 | 403 | 51.27 | 375 | 49.08 | |||
| Girls | 772 | 49.81 | 383 | 48.73 | 389 | 50.92 | |||
| Grade | 0.56 | 0.905 | |||||||
| Third | 408 | 26.32 | 205 | 26.08 | 203 | 26.57 | |||
| Fourth | 426 | 27.48 | 211 | 26.84 | 215 | 28.14 | |||
| Fifth | 420 | 27.10 | 218 | 27.74 | 202 | 26.44 | |||
| Sixth | 296 | 19.10 | 152 | 19.34 | 144 | 18.85 | |||
| Living with Parents | 2.69 | 0.261 | |||||||
| No | 49 | 3.16 | 25 | 3.18 | 24 | 3.14 | |||
| One Parent | 247 | 15.94 | 137 | 17.43 | 110 | 14.40 | |||
| Both Parents | 1254 | 80.90 | 624 | 79.39 | 630 | 82.46 | |||
| Living with grandparents | 4.86 | 0.028 | |||||||
| Yes | 823 | 53.10 | 439 | 55.85 | 384 | 50.26 | |||
| No | 727 | 46.90 | 347 | 44.15 | 380 | 49.74 | |||
| Living in only-child family | 3.46 | 0.063 | |||||||
| Yes | 680 | 43.87 | 363 | 46.18 | 317 | 41.49 | |||
| No | 870 | 56.13 | 423 | 53.82 | 447 | 58.51 | |||
The level of virtue of humanity and life satisfaction after scenario simulation
This study analyzed the levels of children’s life satisfaction and the virtue of humanity in two groups following the scenario simulation trial (Fig. 1). For life satisfaction, children in the positive scenario group reported a mean score of 22.95 (SD = 3.74), compared with 17.59 (SD = 5.24) in the negative scenario group, with the positive group scoring significantly higher than the negative group (t = −23.15, p < 0.001). Regarding the virtue of humanity, children in the positive scenario group also reported significantly higher scores. Specifically, for the capacity to love and be loved, the mean score was 16.20 (SD = 3.38) in the positive group and 13.30 (SD = 4.24) in the negative group (t = −14.94, p < 0.001). For kindness, the mean score was 16.17 (SD = 3.45) in the positive group compared with 13.51 (SD = 4.12) in the negative group (t = −13.81, p < 0.001). Similarly, children in the positive scenario group reported higher sincerity (M = 16.59, SD = 3.31) than those in the negative scenario group (M = 13.58, SD = 4.08). Finally, the mean score for social vitality was 16.25 (SD = 3.42) in the positive group and 13.09 (SD = 4.46) in the negative group, with this difference also reaching statistical significance (t = −15.67, p < 0.001).
Fig. 1.
Independent samples t-test of children's virtue of humanity and life satisfaction in positive and negative scenarios after simulation
Relationship between the social environment and life satisfaction and the role of the virtue of humanity in the full sample
After controlling for baseline information, we examined the effects of the social environment and the virtue of humanity on children’s life satisfaction (Table 2). Model 1 included social environment and explained 29.8% of the variance in children’s life satisfaction. Model 2 included the virtue of humanity and explained 53.0% of the variance in life satisfaction (Model 2). Model 3 included both the social environment and the virtue of humanity and explained 58.4% of the variance in life satisfaction, representing a 28.5% improvement over Model 1 and a 5.3% improvement over Model 2. Children in positive social scenarios (B = 2.75, P < 0.001) reported higher life satisfaction. Higher levels of the virtue of humanity, including capacity to love and be loved (B = 0.41, P < 0.001), sincerity (B = 0.16, P < 0.001), and social vitality (B = 0.29, P < 0.001), were positively associated with greater life satisfaction. Among these, the capacity to love and be loved had the strongest effect (β = 0.32). That is, Hypothesis 1 was supported, and Hypothesis 2 was partly supported.
Table 2.
Relationships between social scenarios, the virtue of humanity and life satisfaction (n = 1550)
| Variables | Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | Model 4 | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B | β | P | B | β | P | B | β | P | B | β | P | |
| Intercept | 11.39 | < 0.01 | < 0.001 | 4.90 | < 0.01 | < 0.001 | 4.99 | < 0.01 | < 0.001 | 17.47 | < 0.01 | < 0.001 |
| Positive scenario | 5.56 | 0.53 | < 0.001 | 2.75 | 0.26 | < 0.001 | 2.84 | 0.27 | < 0.001 | |||
| Virtue of humanity | ||||||||||||
| Love | 0.45 | 0.35 | < 0.001 | 0.41 | 0.32 | < 0.001 | 0.18 | 0.14 | 0.136 | |||
| Kindness | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.470 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 0.582 | −0.26 | −0.20 | 0.028 | |||
| Sincerity | 0.21 | 0.16 | < 0.001 | 0.16 | 0.12 | < 0.001 | 0.47 | 0.35 | < 0.001 | |||
| Social vitality | 0.36 | 0.29 | < 0.001 | 0.29 | 0.24 | < 0.001 | 0.70 | 0.57 | < 0.001 | |||
| Interaction effect | ||||||||||||
| Scenario* love | 0.15 | 0.17 | 0.054 | |||||||||
| Scenario* kindness | 0.22 | 0.25 | 0.007 | |||||||||
| Scenario* sincerity | −0.23 | −0.26 | 0.004 | |||||||||
| Scenario* social vitality | −0.29 | −0.35 | < 0.001 | |||||||||
| Goodness of fit index | ||||||||||||
| R2 | 0.302 | 0.534 | 0.587 | 0.598 | ||||||||
| Adjusted R2 | 0.298 | 0.530 | 0.584 | 0.594 | ||||||||
Model 1 included the variable of social environment; Model 2 included the four dimensions of the virtue of humanity; Model 3 included both social environment and the virtue of humanity. Model 4 added interaction terms between virtue of humanity and social environment scenario based on model 3. All models controlled demographic characteristics (age, gender, and family structure) and baseline class atmosphere. B represents the regression coefficient, and β represents the standardized regression coefficient. R2 represents the coefficient of determination, and adjusted R2 represents the adjusted coefficient of determination
To further examine the role of the virtue of humanity, we conducted mediation analysis using the bootstrap method (Table 3) and interaction effect analysis (Table 2, Model 4). The mediation effect test indicated that the virtue of humanity significantly mediated the relationship between social environment and life satisfaction, with the indirect effect accounting for 50.61% of the total effect (indirect effect = 2.81, 95% CI [2.56, 3.07]). Love (indirect effect = 1.28, 95% CI [1.02, 1.52]), sincerity (indirect effect = 0.50, 95% CI [0.28, 0.71]) and social vitality (indirect effect = 0.98, 95% CI [0.76, 1.20]) could positively mediate the relationship between social environment and life satisfaction. Hypothesis 3 was partly supported. In addition, kindness, sincerity, and social vitality each moderated the association between social environment and life satisfaction. Specifically, high levels of kindness strengthened the positive effect of the social environment on life satisfaction (Fig. 2a). Children with high sincerity and social vitality reported higher life satisfaction than those with low sincerity and social vitality when living in a less child-friendly social environment (Fig. 2b and c). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was partially supported.
Table 3.
Mediation effects of virtue of humanity on the relationship between social environmental scenario and life satisfaction
| Type of effect | Pathway | Estimate | 95% Bootstrap CI |
|---|---|---|---|
| Total effect | Scenario → life satisfaction | 5.56 | [5.22, 5.90] |
| Direct effect | Scenario → life satisfaction | 2.75 | [2.43, 3.05] |
| Indirect effect (via love) | Scenario → love → life satisfaction | 1.28 | [1.02, 1.52] |
| Indirect effect (via kindness) | Scenario → kindness → life satisfaction | 0.06 | [−0.14, 0.27] |
| Indirect effect (via sincerity) | Scenario → sincerity → life satisfaction | 0.50 | [0.28, 0.71] |
| Indirect effect (via social vitality) | Scenario → social vitality → life satisfaction | 0.98 | [0.76, 1.20] |
| Total indirect effect | 2.81 | [2.56, 3.07] | |
| Total indirect effect/total effect | 50.61% |
Bootstrap samples = 2000. CI Confidence interval
Fig. 2.
Interaction effect of social environment scenario and the virtue of humanity (a: scenario * kindness; b: scenario * sincerity; c: scenario * social vitality) on life satisfaction. Note: Only significant interaction terms are presented
Influence of social environment and virtue of humanity on life satisfaction by grade
This study also explored the short-term effect of social environment and virtue of humanity on life satisfaction across grades (Supplementary Material Table S4, Table S5, Table S6 and Table S7). Among students in grades three to six, positive social environment scenarios generally led to a significant increase in children’s life satisfaction (Grade 3rd: B = 2.33, P < 0.001; Grade 4th: B = 2.32, P < 0.001; Grade 5th: B = 3.20, P < 0.001; Grade 6th: B = 3.27, P < 0.001). The positive traits of love and social vitality also showed a consistently significant impact on children’s life satisfaction across grades. Kindness showed no significant effect on life satisfaction across grades three to six.
We also examined the role of virtue of humanity in the relationship between social environment and life satisfaction across grades. The interaction analyses showed that among fourth-grade children, high love could strengthen the positive association between social environment and life satisfaction (Supplementary Material Fig. S2). Children with higher levels of sincerity or social vitality were better able to maintain higher life satisfaction even in negative social environments. A similar buffering pattern for love and social vitality was also observed among sixth-grade children (Supplementary Material Fig. S3). The relationship between social scenario and life satisfaction was significantly mediated by the virtue of humanity across all grade levels. The mediation effect could account for 45.40%, 47.40%, 52.80%, and 55.00% of the total effect in third-, fourth-, fifth- and sixth-grade children, respectively (Supplementary Material Tables S8-S11).
Discussion
This study demonstrated a positive relationship between a child-friendly social environment and children’s life satisfaction through a scenario simulation trial. The findings provide theoretical evidence supporting the potential benefits of creating child-friendly social environments for children’s well-being. As this study was conducted as a preliminary trial prior to the implementation of related policies, children reported their life satisfaction and virtue of humanity after being exposed to specific positive or negative scenarios rather than real-world interventions. Future research should reevaluate the impact of child-friendly social environments on children’s well-being by longitudinally tracking the effects of pilot programs aimed at creating child-friendly social environments or by examining the outcomes of actual policy implementation. In addition, this study explored the role of the virtue of humanity. Both positive psychology and traditional Chinese culture emphasize the cultivation of virtues as fundamental to happiness and well-being. The results suggest that the virtue of humanity may both mediate and moderate the relationship between social environments and life satisfaction. Therefore, to promote children’s well-being, it is important not only to create supportive family, school, and community environments but also to foster the development of children’s virtues.
Benefits of a child-friendly social environment for children’s life satisfaction
Family, school, and community social environments are the immediate environments that influence child development [2]. In this study, a scenario simulation trial was employed to examine whether a friendly social environment is beneficial for children’s life satisfaction by presenting both positive and negative scenarios. Specifically, children in the positive scenario group exhibited significantly higher life satisfaction scores compared with those in the negative scenario group, highlighting the importance of fostering a child-friendly family, school, and community social environment. Although previous studies have demonstrated the beneficial effects of friendly social environments on children’s well-being, they have typically focused on specific aspects [12, 13, 45, 46]. The development of child-friendly cities requires a multidimensional approach to effectively enhance children’s well-being. Accordingly, this study designed both positive and negative social environment scenarios across family, school, and community domains, incorporating factors such as social support, social capital and cohesion, social norms, and neighborhood characteristics [47]. The scenario design was informed by insights from the literature as well as consultations with experts, children, and adults. This holds certain practical significance for policymakers, as the scenarios constructed in this study can inform the formulation and implementation of policies related to child-friendly social environments in the future. Previous studies on the relationship between the social environment and children’s life satisfaction have predominantly relied on observational research designs. This study supports a causal interpretation, consistent with the perspective in community psychology that emphasizes social environment as a key predictor of an individual's life satisfaction [48].
The role of virtue of humanity
This study also highlights the critical role of the virtue of humanity in the relationship between social environmental scenarios and life satisfaction. A friendly social environment and children’s virtues of humanity operate jointly to increase children’s life satisfaction. Within positive psychology, the character strengths framework posits that virtues promote human life satisfaction [49]. This study found that children with higher levels of virtue of humanity (including the capacity to love and be loved, sincerity, and social vitality) exhibited greater life satisfaction. This association may be attributed to the fact that these virtues facilitate the building of good interpersonal relationships and the acquisition of social support, thereby contributing to an individual’s life satisfaction [50]. In a study on Spanish adolescents, love was identified as one of the most important positive traits predicting life satisfaction, and sincerity was also strongly correlated with life satisfaction [51]. Additionally, social vitality represents a direct indicator of an individual's ability to understand and manage interpersonal relationships. Individuals with higher social vitality are more likely to establish and maintain positive relationships, which is crucial for their life satisfaction [52–54].
In addition, the virtue of humanity could play an important role in the relationship between the social environment and life satisfaction. Social environment could influence children’s life satisfaction through the mediated effect of the virtue of humanity. The mediation effect could explain over half of the total effect. Our findings also supported the SCT suggesting that personal virtues develop through social learning. A friendly social environment can foster the virtue of humanity [21, 22]. Moreover, the SCT also highlights that personal factors may interact with environmental factors to influence individuals’ well-being. This study also indicated the moderated effect of the virtue of humanity. For example, children with high levels of sincerity and social vitality may be less affected by negative social environments. In addition, although kindness has no significant impact on children's life satisfaction, it may amplify the benefits of positive social environments. That is, children with higher kindness may experience greater life satisfaction in a positive social environment compared to a negative social environment. Generally, kindness places greater emphasis on active giving and self-transcendence. Yet among children and adolescents, the expression of kindness is affected by social contexts, such as the level of need, interpersonal relationships, and whether the recipient benefits [55]. When children derive sufficient satisfaction from practicing kindness, it enhances life satisfaction; however, if their kind behaviors are not adequately recognized and reinforced, the positive emotions generated by that kindness may be diminished. These findings indicated that efforts to promote children’s life satisfaction should not only focus on designing and implementing child-friendly social policies and improving the surrounding social environment, but also on fostering the development of children’s virtues.
The short-term effect of social environment and the virtue of humanity on children’s life satisfaction across grades
The subgroup analyses showed similar positive total, direct and indirect effects of a child-friendly social environment on children’s life satisfaction across grades 3 to 6. In contrast, the four dimensions of the virtue of humanity exerted varying effects on life satisfaction among primary school students at different grade levels. For third-grade children, love and social vitality contributed to their life satisfaction, whereas kindness and sincerity had no significant effect. This may be attributed to the fact that students in third grade are still developing their cognitive abilities and social-emotional skills [56]. At this stage, life satisfaction is primarily affected by direct emotional experiences and social interaction. Students’ capacity to comprehend abstract concepts is limited, making it difficult for them to fully appreciate the connotation of sincerity [57]. By contrast, virtues like love and social vitality are more readily expressed in social interactions. As children progress through grades, their cognitive and emotional development advances, and in upper-grade primary school students, sincerity shows a significant positive effect on life satisfaction.
Cultural specificity analysis
Personal virtues are critical for children’s life satisfaction. This study indicates that some humanity-related virtues (such as love, sincerity, and social vitality) could not only be positively associated with children’s life satisfaction but also play crucial mediating roles in the relationship between the social environment and life satisfaction. Additionally, fostering kindness amplifies the positive effects of a supportive social environment on children’s well-being, while sincerity and social vitality also help buffer the detrimental impacts of adverse social environments. These findings may be partly explained by the specific cultural context of China. Firstly, Confucianism places strong emphasis on “self-cultivation and virtue development”, which guides individuals to cultivate moral character and ethical behavior. This tradition promotes the idea that personal virtue is essential for achieving social harmony and fulfilling one's role in society, thereby shaping the individual's sense of purpose and well-being. Individuals are encouraged to cultivate and exercise their virtues even under unfavorable social contexts [58, 59]. These principles continue to be emphasized and transmitted in the moral education of contemporary primary school students, reinforcing the potential benefit of personal virtues. Additionally, within a collectivist cultural framework, Chinese children’s life satisfaction may be more closely linked to social recognition rather than self-actualization, as emphasized in the Western individualistic context. Under collectivist cultures, people expect to develop and maintain social relationships, and are encouraged to be generous, helpful, and attentive to the needs of others. In seeking social recognition, Chinese children may be more inclined to cultivate personal virtues, which in turn foster positive experiences. Families, communities, and schools are central to children's lives. These immediate social contexts and personal virtues reciprocally interact to influence children's life satisfaction.
Theoretical and practical implications
Theoretically, this study suggests that child-friendly social environments are positively associated with children’s life satisfaction. It also clarifies the contribution of virtues to this relationship. Specifically, we propose that the virtue of humanity both mediates the effect of the social environment on life satisfaction by reflecting strengths acquired through social learning and moderates this relationship by shaping how children interpret and respond to their surroundings. These findings contribute to the existing literature by integrating insights from the SCT and the character strengths framework.
This study provides practical guidance for urban planners, educators, and policymakers by empirically supporting a core proposition of environmental psychology. Children’s virtues of humanity and life satisfaction are likely to be enhanced by creating a friendly social environment across family, school, and community settings. We recommend that families cultivate an atmosphere of support, interaction, companionship, and mutual respect while reducing conflict and enhancing children’s sense of security. Schools emphasize positive teacher–student and peer relationships, prioritize safety, inclusiveness, respect, and emotional support, and develop constructive learning environments. Communities promote children’s participation, encourage harmonious and reciprocal neighborhood relations, enhance cohesion and safety, and ensure equality and inclusiveness.
Finally, this research offers valuable implications for future studies. Scenario simulations of child-friendly social environments can serve as a tool for predicting the effectiveness of relevant policies and strategies before they are implemented. The specific scenarios offer culturally grounded guidance for designing effective child-friendly social environments to enhance children’s life satisfaction, particularly in regions with cultural contexts similar to China. Future work should continue exploring how to create child-friendly social environments and assessing the effect of those social contexts on children’s well-being.
Limitations
This study has some limitations. First, this study examined the short-term effect of child-friendly social environment on children’s life satisfaction, and the role of virtue of humanity in that relationship through a scenario simulation trial. Scenario simulation trials are primarily useful for the preliminary evaluation of some strategies, plans and policies before they are implemented. The findings of this study could provide theoretical evidence for the stakeholders to understand the benefit of creating child-friendly social environments and the calculation of virtues for children’s wellbeing. But both life satisfaction and virtues are deep psychological constructs that develop and stabilize over a long period. This study indicated that exposure to positive, child-friendly content immediately evokes positive psychological reactions applying the scenario method. However, it cannot fully capture the complex, multifaceted, and long-term influence of a real and sustained social environment on a child's life satisfaction. That is, although the study might demonstrate causality in a controlled setting, applying the results directly to real-world contexts requires caution. Future pilot trial study or empirical research following actual policy implementation is essential to validate the findings of this study. It is also better to conduct longitudinal follow-up studies based on real policy interventions to examine the long-term effects of creating positive social contexts on children sustained psychological well-being.
Second, the scenario simulation trial was conducted in an economically developed city in China, which differs from other regions in terms of economic conditions, children’s academic pressures, and social support systems. This limits the generalizability of the findings to other regions or the entire country. To achieve a more comprehensive evaluation of the practical significance of child-friendly city construction, future research could establish demonstration sites across cities with diverse geographical, economic, and cultural contexts to obtain more holistic assessments of policy outcomes.
Third, the success of the scenario simulation trial depends on children’s comprehension of the simulated scenarios. Although repeated explanations were provided to ensure that participants fully understood the positive or negative social scenarios, it remains challenging to eliminate the influence of individual differences. Variability in students’ cognitive and interpretive abilities may impact children’ self-reported the expression of virtues and perception of life satisfaction, which could introduce bias into the results.
Finally, self-report data are subject to social desirability bias; for example, children may intentionally overstate their life satisfaction. To mitigate this issue, several quality control measures were implemented in this study. Investigators emphasized that the survey was based on hypothetical scenarios and that participants’ responses should correspond to the positive or negative scenario they were presented with. That is, except for baseline information, participants were instructed to answer questions based on imagination rather than their actual experiences. Investigators also avoided providing directive guidance when addressing participants’ questions to minimize response bias. Nevertheless, future studies would benefit from incorporating multi-informant data, such as teacher evaluations and parent reports in further studies.
Conclusion
This study found the positive short-term effect of child-friendly social environments on children’s life satisfaction through a scenario simulation trial. We also highlighted the important role of personal virtues in that relationship. A friendly social environment could indirectly link to children’s life satisfaction through the virtue of humanity. Moreover, the virtue of humanity interacts with environmental factors to influence well-being. Specifically, sincerity and social vitality could enhance resilience to negative environments, whereas kindness amplifies the benefits of positive ones. These findings suggest that fostering a supportive social environment, together with cultivating the virtue of humanity, may help more effectively evoke positive psychological reactions. Subgroup analyses further deepen our understanding by revealing grade-specific patterns in how developmental social environments and internal virtues influence children’s life satisfaction. By simulating contrasting social environments, this study provides causal evidence for the effects of exposure to positive, child-friendly content on children’s well-being. Future research should establish demonstration sites across diverse regions to comprehensively evaluate the effectiveness and long-term impact of child-friendly social environment.
Supplementary Information
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge all research assistants and investigators for their dedicated assistance in the data collection. We would also like to thank our participants in the study for their time and willingness to participate. The authors are fully responsible for the content of this study.
Authors’ contributions
Meijie Chu: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing—original draft, Visualization. Baoyi Zeng: Writing—original draft, Visualization. Yi-Tsen Lai: Investigation, Writing—review & editing. Yi-Chen Chiang: Conceptualization, Project administration, Supervision, Writing—review & editing, Funding acquisition.
Funding
This work was supported by the Scientific Research Grant of Fujian Province of China (grant number Z0230104).
Data availability
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Declarations
Ethics approval and consent to participate
This study was approved by the Biomedical Ethics Committee of the Xiamen University School of Medicine (No. XDYX2021033). For the children participating in this study, we obtained informed consent from the children's legal guardians. This study followed the guidelines issued in the Declaration of Helsinki where applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Footnotes
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
References
- 1.Gómez-López M, Viejo C, Romera EM, Ortega-Ruiz R. Psychological well-being and social competence during adolescence: longitudinal association between the two phenomena. Child Indic Res. 2022;15(3):1043–61. 10.1007/s12187-021-09899-w. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Bronfenbrenner U. The ecology of human development. Harvard University Press. 1979. 10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0114. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Cassel J. The contribution of the social environment to host resistance: the fourth Wade Hampton Frost lecture. Am J Epidemiol. 1976;104(2):107–23. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.OECD. Building child-friendly neighbourhoods: empowering communities with data-driven action OECD. 2025. 10.1787/4f46a260-en.
- 5.National Development and Reform Commission, S. C. O. f. W. a. C., Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development, et al. Guiding Opinions on Promoting the Development of Child-Friendly Cities. 2021. https://www.ndrc.gov.cn/xwdt/wszb/tjetyhcsjs/etxgwj/202110/t20211015_1299751.html.
- 6.UNICEF. Child rights education toolkit: Rooting child rights in early childhood education, Primary and Secondary Schools. UNICEF. 2017. https://www.unicef.org/media/63081/file/UNICEF-Child-Rights-Education-Toolkit.pdf.
- 7.UNICEF. Child Friendly Cities and Communities Handbook. 2018. https://www.unicef.org/lac/media/1411/file/Child-Friendly-Cities-and-Communities-Handbook.pdf.
- 8.Anwar DR, Selim G. Integrating child-friendly green spaces into post-disaster recovery: psychological, physical, and educational sustainability impact on children’s well-being. Sustainability (Switzerland). 2025;17(18):8495. 10.3390/su17188495. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Collins PY, Sinha M, Concepcion T, Patton G, Way T, McCay L, et al. Making cities mental health friendly for adolescents and young adults [Article]. Nature. 2024;627(8002):137–48. 10.1038/s41586-023-07005-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10.Wang X, Huang J, Qin Z, Gan W, He Z, Li X. Is the children’s 15-minute city an effective framework for enhancing children’s health and well-being? An empirical analysis from Western China. Buildings. 2025;15(2):248. 10.3390/buildings15020248. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Dore EC, Wurapa J. The long-term health effects of childhood exposure to social and economic policies: a scoping review. Soc Sci Med. 2024;352:117024. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117024. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Wang D, Choi JK, Shin J. Long-term neighborhood effects on adolescent outcomes: mediated through adverse childhood experiences and parenting stress. J Youth Adolesc. 2020;49(10):2160–73. 10.1007/s10964-020-01305-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.Wang MTL, Degol J, Amemiya J, Parr A, Guo J. Classroom climate and children’s academic and psychological wellbeing: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Rev. 2020;57:100912. 10.1016/j.dr.2020.100912.
- 14.Chu MJ, Fang ZW, Lee CY, Hu YH, Li X, Chen SH, et al. Collaboration between school and home to improve subjective well-being: a new Chinese children’s subjective well-being scale. Child Indic Res. 2023;16(4):1527–52. 10.1007/s12187-023-10018-0. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Gomez-Baya D, Garcia-Moro FJ, Nicoletti JA, Lago-Urbano R. A cross-national analysis of the effects by bullying and school exclusion on subjective happiness in 10-year-old children. Children (Basel). 2022;9(2):287. 10.3390/children9020287. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16.Zhang Y, Wu Y, Ye Z, Ye H, Ye Y. The relationship among class environment, personal growth initiative and well-being of migrant children: based on the latent variable growth model. Chin J Clin Psychol. 2023;31(06):1380–5. 10.16128/j.cnki.1005-3611.2023.06.017. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Turkmani S, Bista S, Wang JJJ, O’Donnell AW, Thomson C, Radcliffe NJ, et al. Social and emotional wellbeing among young people; the mitigating role of ecological domains. Child Indic Res. 2023;16(3):941–62. 10.1007/s12187-022-10008-8. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Thompson RA. The Development of virtue: a perspective from developmental psychology. In Cultivating Virtue: Perspectives from Philosophy, Theology, and Psychology (pp. 0). Oxford University Press. 2014. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199967421.003.0012.
- 19.Zhou Z, Shek DT, Zhu X, Lin L. The influence of moral character attributes on adolescent life satisfaction: the mediating role of responsible behavior. Child Indic Res. 2021;14(3):1293–313. [Google Scholar]
- 20.Peterson C, Seligman ME. Character strengths and virtues: A handbook and classification (Vol. 1). Oxford university press. 2004.
- 21.Chu M, Fang Z, Lee C-Y, Shang-Kuan C-H, Mao L, Chiang Y-C. Building a child-friendly social environment from the perspective of children in China based on focus group interviews. Curr Psychol. 2025;44(3):2001–17. 10.1007/s12144-024-07273-x. [Google Scholar]
- 22.Chu M, Jiang Y, Zhao Z, Xiong S, Hua Y, Zhou M, et al. Do humanity’s virtuous children experience greater happiness? The role of the social environment. J Happiness Stud. 2025;26(7):116. 10.1007/s10902-025-00910-7. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Malti T. Kindness: a perspective from developmental psychology. Eur J Dev Psychol. 2021;18(5):629–57. 10.1080/17405629.2020.1837617. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Reis HT, Gable SL. Toward a positive psychology of relationships 10.1037/10594-006. American Psychological Association. 2003.
- 25.Wang K. The Theory and Practice of Chinese Confucian Mental Health Education. In H. S. Moffic, R. R. Gogineni, J. R. Peteet, N. K. Aggarwal, N. K. Malhi, & A. Hankir (Eds.), Eastern Religions, Spirituality, and Psychiatry: An Expansive Perspective on Mental Health and Illness (pp. 211–219). Springer Nature Switzerland. 2024. 10.1007/978-3-031-56744-5_18.
- 26.Bandura A. Social foundations of thought and action. Englewood Cliffs, NJ. 1986;1986(23–28):2. [Google Scholar]
- 27.McAlister AL, Perry CL, Parcel GS. How individuals, environments, and health behaviors interact. Health Behavior. 2008;169:169–88. [Google Scholar]
- 28.Huebner ES, Ash C, Laughlin JE. Life experiences, locus of control, and school satisfaction in adolescence. Soc Indic Res. 2001;55(2):167–83. 10.1023/A:1010939912548. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Leto IV, Loginova SV, Varshal A, Slobodskaya HR. Interactions between family environment and personality in the prediction of child life satisfaction. Child Indic Res. 2021;14(4):1345–63. 10.1007/s12187-020-09798-6. [Google Scholar]
- 30.Ni X, Li X, Wang Y. The impact of family environment on the life satisfaction among young adults with personality as a mediator. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2021;120:105653. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105653. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Haidt J. The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Basic books. 2006.
- 32.Martin MW. Happiness and virtue in positive psychology. J Theory Soc Behav. 2007;37(1):89–103. 10.1111/j.1468-5914.2007.00322.x. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Piliavin JA. Doing well by doing good: Benefits for the benefactor. 2003. 10.1037/10594-010. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Park N, Peterson C. Positive psychology and character strengths: application to strengths-based school counseling. Prof Sch Counsel. 2008;12(2):2156759X0801200214. 10.1177/2156759X0801200214. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Chiang Y-C, Gao D-R, Li X, Lee C-Y, Sun X-Y, Chen C-T. Effect of urban transformation and the age-friendly city strategy on the improvement of residents’ subjective well-being: simulation based on the scenario method. J Urban Plann Dev. 2021;147(4):04021044. 10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000740. [Google Scholar]
- 36.Jansson M, Herbert E, Zalar A, Johansson M. Child-friendly environments—what, how and by whom? Sustainability. 2022;14(8). 10.3390/su14084852.
- 37.The state council of the people's republic of China. Guiding opinions on promoting the construction of child-friendly cities. 2021. Retrieved 2021–09–30, from https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/zhengceku/2021-10/21/content_5643976.htm.
- 38.Hill PC, DiFonzo N, Jones CE, Bell JS. Measurement at the Intersection of Positive Psychology and the Psychology of Religion/Spirituality. In E. B. Davis, E. L. Worthington Jr, & S. A. Schnitker (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Psychology, Religion, and Spirituality (pp. 99–112). Springer International Publishing. 2003. 10.1007/978-3-031-10274-5_7.
- 39.Duan W, Ho SMY, Yu B, Tang X, Zhang Y, Li T, et al. Factor structure of the Chinese virtues questionnaire. Res Soc Work Pract. 2012;22(6):680–8. 10.1177/1049731512450074. [Google Scholar]
- 40.Hu T. Research on Developmental Characteristics and its influencing factors to social adaptation of "floating children". Southwest University. Chongqing. 2007.
- 41.Cheung GW, Cooper-Thomas HD, Lau RS, Wang LC. Reporting reliability, convergent and discriminant validity with structural equation modeling: a review and best-practice recommendations. Asia Pac J Manage. 2024;41(2):745–83. 10.1007/s10490-023-09871-y. [Google Scholar]
- 42.Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ. Multivariate Data Analysis: A Global Perspective. Pearson Education. 2010. https://books.google.com/books?id=SLRPLgAACAAJ.
- 43.Hair JF, Black WC, Balin BJ, Anderson RE, Tatham, RL. Multivariate data analysis. 7th Editions. NJ: Prentice hall. 2010. Hoboken.
- 44.Fornell C, Larcker DF. Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. J Market Res. 1981;18(1):39–50. 10.1177/002224378101800104. [Google Scholar]
- 45.Phan HP, Ngu BH, Zhong HF, Usop HH, Anding PN. The importance of social support: facilitating positive well-being experiences of elementary school students. Psychol Sch. 2025;62(7):2311–38. 10.1002/pits.23469. [Google Scholar]
- 46.Wang Y, Xu S, Liu L, Chen Y, Zheng G. Exploring the role of child-friendly communities in alleviating the turbulence of psychological reactance among educationally disadvantaged youth. Child Youth Serv Rev. 2024;159:107503. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107503. [Google Scholar]
- 47.McNeill LH, Kreuter MW, Subramanian SV. Social environment and physical activity: a review of concepts and evidence. Soc Sci Med. 2006;63(4):1011–22. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2006.03.012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Kloos B, Hill J, Thomas E, Wandersman A, Elias MJ, Dalton JH. Community psychology. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 2012.
- 49.Park N, Peterson C, Seligman M. Strengths of character and well-being. J Soc Clin Psychol. 2004;23(5):603–19. 10.1521/jscp.23.5.603.50748. [Google Scholar]
- 50.Yépez-Tito P, Ferragut M, Cóndor-Guerrón S, Blanca MJ. Life satisfaction and character strenghs in Ecuatorian adolescents. Child Indic Res. 2022;15(2):599–616. 10.1007/s12187-021-09886-1. [Google Scholar]
- 51.Blanca M, Ferragut M, Ortiz-Tallo M, Bendayan R. Life satisfaction and character strengths in Spanish early adolescents. J Happiness Stud. 2018. 10.1007/s10902-017-9865-y. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Caqueo-Urízar A, Atencio D, Urzúa A, Flores J. Integration, social competence and life satisfaction: the mediating effect of resilience and self-esteem in adolescents. Child Indic Res. 2022;15(2):617–29. 10.1007/s12187-021-09907-z. [Google Scholar]
- 53.Proctor CL, Linley PA, Maltby J. Youth life satisfaction: a review of the literature. J Happiness Stud. 2009;10(5):583–630. 10.1007/s10902-008-9110-9. [Google Scholar]
- 54.Rigby BT, Huebner ES. Do causal attributions mediate the relationship between personality characteristics and life satisfaction in adolescence? Psychol Sch. 2005;42(1):91–9. 10.1002/pits.20026. [Google Scholar]
- 55.Cotney J, Banerjee R. Adolescents’ Conceptualizations of Kindness and its Links with Well-being: A Focus Group Study. J Soc Pers Relat. 2019;36:599–617. 10.1177/0265407517738584. [Google Scholar]
- 56.Hank P. Inside the 3rd grader’s brain. Parenting. 2025. Retrieved April 30 from https://www.greatschools.org/gk/parenting/health-and-development/third-grader-brain-development/.
- 57.Malik F, Marwaha R. Cognitive development. In StatPearls: StatPearls Publishing; 2023. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 58.Yu J. Virtue: Confucius and Aristotle. Philos East West. 1998;48(2):323–347. 10.2307/1399830.
- 59.Yu L, Xie D. Measuring virtues in Chinese culture: development of a Chinese moral character questionnaire. Appl Res Qual Life. 2021;16(1):51–69. 10.1007/s11482-019-09745-w. [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Supplementary Materials
Data Availability Statement
The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.