In the era of people-centered governance, the legitimacy and effectiveness of government actions are increasingly evaluated not only by objective policy outcomes but also by the public's emotional and psychological responses. This study explores the multiple mechanisms by which social mentality affects public evaluations of government performance. We propose a theoretical model based on a triadic “individual-society-government” relationship, emphasizing both direct and indirect pathways linking individual life conditions to government evaluations via one's social mentality. Drawing on nationally representative data from the China Social Survey(CSS), this study employs a combination of structural equation modeling(SEM) and moderated mediation analysis to empirically test the proposed model. Social mentality is conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct consisting of four core dimensions: social trust, social morality, social justice, and social security. These dimensions capture both the expressive and the instrumental components of societal functioning, and they are hypothesized to mediate the influence of individual life conditions on how people evaluate government performance. The results reveal two primary mechanisms: an “upward reflecting” pathway, whereby positive life experiences enhance the social mentality elements; and a “downward releasing” pathway, whereby the individuals' concerns about social trust, social morality, social justice, and social security shape public perceptions of governance. The instrumental dimensions—namely social justice and social security—demonstrate stronger mediating effects than the expressive dimensions that are composed of social trust and social morality, suggesting that citizens are more sensitive to equity and safety when evaluating government legitimacy. Moreover, social class plays a significant moderating role. Subjective social class perceptions may either amplify or weaken the influence of social mentality on government evaluation. Specifically, those individuals in lower subjective social strata are more responsive to issues of justice and security, whereas individuals with higher objective socioeconomic status show more stable, less emotionally driven patterns of evaluation. By unveiling the psychological and sociological mechanisms linking personal well-being to institutional satisfaction, this study underscores the critical role of social mentality in contemporary governance. It also provides valuable empirical evidence for policymakers to design governance strategies that not only improve material conditions but also actively cultivate social cohesion, fairness, and public confidence. In sum, the research contributes to both theory and practice by offering a dynamic framework for understanding the public's evaluative logic and reinforcing the importance of one's psychological and emotional well-being to advance the modernization of social governance.
Xu et al. (Mon,) studied this question.