Türkiye’de algılanan gelir ve eğitim düzeyinin öznel iyi oluş üzerindeki etkisi: Yaşam kalitesi ve medeni durumun rolü

Abstract

Öznel iyi oluş, kişinin kendi değerlendirmesine göre iyi olma halini bütüncül biçimde açıklamaya çalışan kavramlardan birisidir. Bu kavram, bireylerin akut duygu durumlarını yansıtan mutluluk ile bireyin geçmiş yaşantısından hayata dair geleceğe yönelik beklentilerine kadar uzayan yaşam memnuniyetinin bir birleşiminden oluşmaktadır. Böylece öznel iyi oluş, bireyleri hem bilişsel hem de duygusal perspektiften bütüncül bir şekilde açıklar. Buna bağlı olarak bireylerin öznel iyi oluşlarına doğrudan ve dolaylı olarak birçok faktör etki etmektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, bireylerin algıladıkları gelir ve eğitim düzeyleri ile öznel iyi oluşları arasındaki ilişkide yaşam kalitesinin aracılık, medeni durumun ise düzenleyici bir rolünün olup olmadığını analiz etmektedir. Çalışmada TÜİK 2022 Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması mikro veri seti kullanılmış ve veriler GSEM (Generalized Structural Equation Model) yöntemi ile analiz edilmiştir. Çalışmanın bulguları, bekarlarda, eşi ölmüş veya eşinden boşanmış bireylerde eğitim düzeyi ve öznel iyi oluş arasında yaşam kalitesinin tam aracılık, evlilerde ise kısmi aracılık etkisinin olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Çalışmanın bulguları özellikle eşi ölmüş veya eşinden boşanmış bireylerde eğitim seviyesi yükseldikçe öznel iyi oluş seviyesinin düştüğünü, buna karşın yine aynı grupta eğitim arttıkça yaşam kalitesinin arttığını ve artan yaşam kalitesi ile öznel iyi oluşun yükseldiğini göstermektedir. Çalışmanın sonuçları, gelir memnuniyetinin tüm gruplarda hem doğrudan hem de yaşam kalitesi aracılığı ile dolaylı olarak öznel iyi oluşu anlamlı biçimde etkilediğini ortaya koymaktadır.

Keywords

• öznel iyi oluş
• yaşam kalitesi
• mutluluk
• yaşam memnuniyeti
• gsem

The impact of perceived income and educational attainment on subjective well-being in Turkiye: The roles of quality of life and marital status

Abstract

Subjective well-being is one of the concepts that aim to comprehensively explain individuals’ state of well-being based on their self-evaluations. This concept encompasses both happiness, which reflects individuals’ momentary emotional states, and life satisfaction, which extends from past experiences to future expectations about life. In this way, subjective well-being provides a holistic understanding of individuals from both cognitive and emotional perspectives. Accordingly, numerous factors, both direct and indirect, influence individuals’ subjective well-being. In this context, the present study investigates whether quality of life serves as a mediating variable and marital status as a moderating variable in the relationship between individuals’ perceived income and education levels and their subjective well-being. The study utilizes the 2022 Life Satisfaction Survey microdata set provided by TURKSTAT (Turkish Statistical Institute), and the data are analysed using the Generalized Structural Equation Modelling (GSEM) method. The findings reveal that among singles, widowed, and divorced individuals, quality of life fully mediates the relationship between education level and subjective well-being, whereas among married individuals, this mediation is partial. Specifically, the results indicate that for widowed or divorced individuals, as education level increases, subjective well-being tends to decrease. However, in the same group, increased education is associated with an improvement in quality of life, which in turn enhances subjective well-being. Furthermore, the results show that income satisfaction significantly affects subjective well-being across all groups, both directly and indirectly through quality of life.

Keywords

• subjective well-being
• quality of life
• happiness
• life satisfaction
• gsem

References

1. Ahuvia, A. C. ve Friedman, D. C. (1998). Income, consumption, and subjective well-being: Toward a composite macromarketing model. Journal of Macromarketing, 18(2), 153-168. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/027614679801800207
2. Boelhouwer, J. ve Noll, H. H. (2024). Objective quality of life. In Encyclopedia of quality of life and well-being research (pp. 4783-4785). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
3. Brown, J. L., MacDonald, R.. ve Mitchell, R. (2015). Are people who participate in cultural activities more satisfied with life?. Social Indicators Research, 122, 135-146. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0678-7
4. Casale, D. (2015). How does the study of subjective well-being became significant in the economic research and why is it relevant for the policy studies?. The Journal of Young Economists.
5. Clark, A. E., Frijters, P. ve Shields, M. A. (2008). Relative income, happiness, and utility: An explanation for the Easterlin paradox. Journal of Economic Literature, 46(1), 95–144. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.46.1.95
6. D'Ambrosio, C. ve Frick, J. R. (2004). Subjective well-being and relative deprivation: An empirical link (No. 449). DIW Discussion Papers.
7. Destriande, I. M., Faridah, I., Oktania, K. ve Rahman, S. (2021). Faktor yang mempengaruhi kualitas hidup pada lanjut usia. Jurnal Psikologi Wijaya Putra (Psikowipa), 2(1), 1-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.38156/psikowipa.v2i1.41
8. Diener, E. (2000). Subjective well-being: The science of happiness and a proposal for a national index. American Psychologist, 55(1), 34. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.34

9. Diener, E. ve Chan, M. Y. (2011). Happy people live longer: Subjective well‐being contributes to health and longevity. Applied Psychology: Health and Well‐Being, 3(1), 1-43. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1758-0854.2010.01045.x
10. Diener, E. ve Ryan, K. (2009). Subjective well-being: A general overview. South African Journal of Psychology, 39(4), 391-406. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/008124630903900402
11. Diener, E., Suh, E. M., Lucas, R. E. ve Smith, H. L. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of progress. Psychological Bulletin, 125(2), 276. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.125.2.276
12. Diener, E., Tay, L. ve Oishi, S. (2013). Rising income and the subjective well-being of nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104(2), 267. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030487
13. Drastichová, M. ve Filzmoser, P. (2021). Factors of quality of life in a group of selected European Union and OECD countries. Problemy Ekorozwoju, 16(2), 75-93.
14. Easterlin, R. A. ve Angelescu, L. (2011). Modern economic growth and quality of life: Cross-sectional and time series evidence. In Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 113-136). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
15. Easterlin, R. A. ve O’Connor, K. J. (2022). The easterlin paradox. In Handbook of labor, human resources and population economics (pp. 1-25). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
16. Iwasaki, Y. (2007). Leisure and quality of life in an international and multicultural context: What are major pathways linking leisure to quality of life?. Social Indicators Research, 82, 233-264. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-006-9032-z
17. Jahan, A. (2023). The economics of happiness: subjective well-being and economic indicators. Research Journal of Psychology, 1(1), 32-40. Doi: https://doi.org/10.59075/rjs.v1i1.5
18. Jeffres, L. W. ve Dobos, J. (1993). Perceptions of leisure opportunities and the quality of life in a metropolitan area. Journal of Leisure Research, 25(2), 203-217. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/00222216.1993.11969918
19. Kahneman, D. ve Deaton, A. (2010). High income improves evaluation of life but not emotional well-being. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107(38), 16489–16493. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1011492107
20. Karney, B. R. ve Bradbury, T. N. (1995). The longitudinal course of marital quality and stability: A review of theory, methods, and research. Psychological Bulletin, 118(1), 3. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.118.1.3
21. Laursen, B. ve Hartl, A. C. (2013). Understanding loneliness during adolescence: Developmental changes that increase the risk of perceived social isolation. Journal of Adolescence, 36(6), 1261-1268. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2013.06.003
22. Lee, H. ve Heo, S. (2021). Benefits of leisure activities for the quality of life of older South Korean adults. Leisure Studies, 40(2), 199-211. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/02614367.2020.1820556
23. Levasseur, M., Desrosiers, J. ve Noreau, L. (2004). Is social participation associated with quality of life of older adults with physical disabilities?. Disability and Rehabilitation, 26(20), 1206-1213. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/09638280412331270371
24. Lloyd, K. M. ve Auld, C. J. (2002). The role of leisure in determining quality of life: Issues of content and measurement. Social Indicators Research, 57, 43-71. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1013879518210
25. Luhmann, M., Schimmack, U. ve Eid, M. (2011). Stability and variability in the relationship between subjective well-being and income. Journal of Research in Personality, 45(2), 186-197. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2011.01.004
26. Maddux, J. E. (2017). Subjective well-being and life satisfaction: An introduction to conceptions, theories, and measures. In Subjective well-being and life satisfaction. Routledge.
27. Mathentamo, Q., Lawana, N. ve Hlafa, B. (2024). Interrelationship between subjective wellbeing and health. BMC Public Health, 24(1), 2213. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-19676-3
28. Mentzakis, E. ve Moro, M. (2009). The poor, the rich and the happy: Exploring the link between income and subjective well-being. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 38(1), 147-158. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socec.2008.07.010
29. Ngamaba, K. H., Panagioti, M. ve Armitage, C. J. (2017). How strongly related are health status and subjective well-being? Systematic review and meta-analysis. The European Journal of Public Health, 27(5), 879-885. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckx081
30. Okun, M. A., Stock, W. A., Haring, M. J. ve Witter, R. A. (1984). Health and subjective well-being: A meta-analysis. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19(2), 111-132. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2190/qgjn-0n81-5957-haqd
31. Ortiz-Ospina, E. ve Roser M. (2017) - “Happiness and Life Satisfaction” Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Erişim adresi: https://ourworldindata.org/happiness-and-life-satisfaction'
32. Pukeliene, V. ve Starkauskiene, V. (2011). Quality of life: Factors determining its measurement complexity. Engineering Economics, 22(2), 147-156. Doi: https://doi.org/10.5755/j01.ee.22.2.311
33. Rodríguez, A. (2010). Leisure and relationship to quality-of-life satisfaction. In Quality-of-life community indicators for parks, recreation and tourism management (pp. 23-39). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
34. Røysamb, E., Tambs, K., Reichborn-Kjennerud, T., Neale, M. C. ve Harris, J. R. (2003). Happiness and health: environmental and genetic contributions to the relationship between subjective well-being, perceived health, and somatic illness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1136. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1136
35. Sani, T. L. (2022). Factors Influencing the Quality of Human Life. International Journal of Emerging Multidisciplinaries: Social Science, 1(1). Doi: https://doi.org/10.54938/ijemdss.2022.01.1.107
36. Sirgy, M. J. (2012). Effects of personal activities on subjective QOL. The Psychology of Quality of Life: Hedonic Well-Being, Life Satisfaction, and Eudaimonia, 109-121.
37. Sirgy, M. J., Gao, T. ve Young, R. F. (2008). How does residents’ satisfaction with community services influence quality of life (QOL) outcomes?. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 3, 81-105. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11482-008-9048-4
38. StataCorp. (2025). GSEM_Generalized structural equation model estimation command. Erişim adresi: http://www.stata.com/manuals/semgsem.pdf
39. Stevenson, B. ve Wolfers, J. (2013). Subjective well-being and income: Is there any evidence of satiation?. American Economic Review, 103(3), 598-604. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.103.3.598
40. Stutzer, A. ve Frey, B. S. (2010). Recent advances in the economics of individual subjective well-being. Social Research: An International Quarterly, 77(2), 679-714. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1353/sor.2010.0055
41. TÜİK. (2022). Türkiye İstatistik Kurumu Yaşam Memnuniyeti Araştırması Mikro Veri Seti 2022.
42. Umberson, D. ve Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51(S), S54–S66. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146510383501
43. Vasylieva, T., Witczak-Smolnik, W., Tiutiunyk, I. ve Filep, B. (2023). Social and economic determinants of quality of life: Case of European countries. Economics & Sociology, 16(4), 289-308. Doi: https://doi.org/10.14254/2071-789x.2023/16-4/14
44. Veenhoven, R. (2011). Happiness: Also known as “life satisfaction” and “subjective well-being”. In Handbook of social indicators and quality of life research (pp. 63-77). Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands.
45. Wang, W. C., Kao, C. H., Huan, T. C. ve Wu, C. C. (2011). Free time management contributes to better quality of life: A study of undergraduate students in Taiwan. Journal of Happiness Studies, 12, 561-573. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-010-9217-7
46. Zautra, A. ve Hempel, A. (1984). Subjective well-being and physical health: A narrative literature review with suggestions for future research. The International Journal of Aging and Human Development, 19(2), 95-110. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2190/a9rb-7d02-g77k-m3n6