A scoping review is more suitable for this study due to its exploratory nature and the breadth of the field. We conducted a scoping review in order to understand the research scope of the topics and identify potential gaps. Scoping reviews, unlike systematic reviews, do not aim for comprehensive subject coverage (Dowling et al., 2018). Scholars also do not typically undertake an assessment of research quality (Dowling et al., 2018). As Arksey and O'Malley (2005) noted, scoping reviews are especially appropriate for topics that have not been extensively reviewed previously or when the extent of prior research in the area remains ambiguous. The link between social capital and hedonic well-being within the scope of sports and physical activities meets these conditions, as there exists a gap in the literature examining this interplay. We adopted Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR) as our drafting protocol, which was formulated by a research team with 24 experts under the guidance of EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of Health Research) Network (Tricco et al., 2018). The methodology stressed that a wide range of stakeholders should be involved and methodology rigor should be ensured by utilizing the checklist to report scoping reviews. Eventually, this methodology enables scoping reviews to have comprehensive coverage and gain clarity in reporting. The whole checklist for the current scoping review can be seen in the Appendix.

Eligibility criteria were developed to evaluate identified articles. The inclusion criteria were published in journal articles with a formal hypothesis that studied the link between social capital and hedonic well-being, which contained at least one item of social capital and hedonic well-being measurements. We included all the research papers published from 1990 to 2023 (last research date: February 13th, 2023), for no review has been done regarding social capital and hedonic well-being in the sport and physical activity contexts. Studies were excluded if they (a) were not written in English, (b) did not focus on the relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being, (c) did not include empirical quantitative data, and (d) did not have a hypothesis on a statistical link between social capital and hedonic well-being. Only quantitative studies were included as the authors followed the positivism paradigm. The positive paradigm emphasizes the importance of objective and empirical data evidence, striving to minimize the influence of human bias in subjective interpretation (Alharahsheh and Pius, 2020).

This scoping review utilized several databases, including PubMed, Scopus (Elsevier), SPORTDiscus, and Web of Science, to identify English-language articles published on or before the last searching date (February 13th, 2023). Google Scholar was used to do a grey search. The articles were identified utilizing a series of keywords of “social capital” and “well-being.” The keywords of “social capital” contained “social capital,” “social cohesion” and “social network.” The keywords of “hedonic well-being” contained “hedonic well-being” and “subjective well-being.” Since we were willing to explore social capital and hedonic well-being in sport and physical activity context, “sport,” “athlete(s)” and “physical activity” are also contained in the search strings. Besides, the grey search can be performed by manual search (Binepal et al., 2015). We used Google Scholar to search the references of the reviewed articles from the other four databases to identify more papers.

The screening process and the final screening results are illustrated in Figure 1. The initial search results from all the five databases we used were 475 articles. After applying the exclusion criteria, a total of 24 articles that met the eligibility criteria were included in the present study (refer to Figure 1).

Table 1 encapsulates the conceptualizations and measurements of social capital, and Table 2 presents an overview of the conceptualizations and measurements related to hedonic well-being. Table 3 provides the characteristics and key findings of each study in this scoping review, including region, study design, and main findings. The 24 studies collectively involved 129,669 participants, including 45,589 males, 54,826 females, and 29,254 with unidentified gender. The mean participant age, undisclosed in 10 studies, was approximately 46.45 years. Participant details per study are available in Table 3.

Prior research acknowledges the lack of consensus in defining social capital (Bartolini et al., 2008; Rodgers et al., 2019). This review identified five interpretations of social capital in the context of sport. Specifically, 37.5% (9/24) studies defined social capital as resources derived from social networks (Atilgan and Tükel, 2021; Ardahan, 2018; Bartolini et al., 2008; Huxhold et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2016; Lera-López et al., 2021; Mcteer and Curtis, 1993; Niioka et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2022). Another eight studies were in line with Putnam's (1995, 2000) three-dimensional definition: social networks, norms, and trust (Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra, 2017; Kesavayuth et al., 2022a; Kesavayuth et al., 2022b; Lin, 2022; Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015; Taks and Rocha, 2022; Winkelmann, 2009; Zhou et al., 2021). Trust was considered central to social capital in four studies (Bartolini et al., 2008; Bjørnskov, 2008; Downward et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019), while three viewed social support as the prime indicator (Bailey et al., 2020; Jeon et al., 2016; Mo et al., 2022). Sun et al. (2021) represented social capital through social cohesion.

Overall, we identified both single-dimensional and multidimensional ways to conceptualize social capital in the sport and physical activity contexts (Table 1). The mainstream concept of social capital is to operationalize social capital as resources produced from social networks (nine papers), and social support is considered as one of the resources (three papers). Meanwhile, six papers used Putnam’s (1995, 2000) concept of social capital focuses on trust, social network(s) and reciprocity/norms. This is another popular way to define social capital based on the results of this review. This conclusion matches the findings of the previous review of social capital (e.g., Rodgers et al., 2019). Besides, Kesavayuth et al. (2022a) included volunteering as one of the three indicators of social capital. Matsushima and Matsunaga (2015) measured norms by volunteering. Participants were asked whether they “have done volunteering in the past year.” Ardahan (2018) conceptualized social capital within a network of volunteers. Social capital can be effectively fostered through sport volunteerism (Perks, 2007), yet there is room to further explore hedonic well-being through sport volunteerism.

We found 17 measurements for social capital (Table 1), including (1) a Generalized Trust; (2) the Japanese version of the abbreviated Lubben Social Network Scale (LSNS-6; Kurimoto et al., 2011); (3) Berkman Social Network Index (Berkman and Syme, 1979); (4) Social Network Scale (Li and Chen, 2012); (5) Social Relationship with family and friends (Center for Sociological Research, 2014); (6) Social Support Scale (Park, 1985; Yun, 1993); (7) the Perceived Social Support Scale (Zimet et al., 1988); (8) the Perceived Social Support Scale (Su et al., 2014); (9) The Family Support Scale (FSS; Dunst et al., 1988); (10) Online and Offline Bonding and Bridging scales (Williams, 2006), (11) Social Capital Scale for Turkey (Ardahan, 2012; Onyx and Bullen, 2000), (12) Social Capital Scale (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2018), (13) Social Cohesion (Taks and Rocha, 2017), (14) Social Capital Scale (Gibson et al., 2014), (15) Group Environmental Questionnaire (Carron et al., 1985; Hongyu, 2008), (16) Social Engagement (German Institute for Economic Research, 2004) and (17) Sport Event Participation Social Capital Scale (SEPSCS; Zhou et al., 2021).

Researchers measuring social capital in a single-dimensional manner focused on social network, support, trust, or cohesion. To measure social networks, the Social Capital Scale for Turkey (Ardahan, 2012; Onyx and Bullen, 2000) was utilized by Ardahan (2018) and Atilgan and Tükel (2021) for social network characteristics. This scale has been adapted for various cultures including Greece and China (Kritsotakis et al., 2008; Xu et al., 2020). Bartolini et al. (2008) used Relational Social Capital and Trust in Institutions, respectively, to test two different types of social capital, while Huxhold et al. (2013) measured network size, contact, and frequency. Lee et al. (2016) measured Online and Offline Bonding and Bridging Scales (Williams, 2006) and Perceived Social Support (Zimet et al., 1988) for social network. Other notable scales include the four-item Social Relationships with Family and Friends (Lera-López et al., 2021), the seven-item Berkman Social Network Index (Mcteer and Curtis, 1993), and the six-item Japanese version of LSNS-6 for elder rehabilitation (Niioka et al., 2020). Zhang et al. (2022) used the three-item Social Network Scale (Li and Chen, 2012). Limitations were noted in only measuring social network size (Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015; Zhou et al., 2021), for it cannot measure other key characteristics of social network, such as social engagement or contact frequency (e.g., Huxhold et al., 2013; Winkelmann, 2009). Social support was measured by Jeon et al. (2016) using the 25-item Social Support Scale (Park, 1985; Yun, 1993), Bailey et al. (2020) with the Family Support Scale (FSS; Dunst et al., 1988), and Mo et al. (2022) used a six-item Perceived Social Support Scale (Su et al., 2014). Bailey et al. (2020) discussed that FSS is more suitable when targeting young people.

In the multidimensional approach to social capital, six papers adopted Putnam’s definition, focusing on trust, networks, and reciprocity/community participation. Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra (2017) used the six-item Social Network and seven-item Trust from the World Values Survey (WVS). Lin (2022) used a 19-item Social Capital Scale with trust, safety, social connections, and collective action indicators. Matsushima and Matsunaga (2015) used single-item measures for trust, membership, and volunteering, discussing the insufficiency of their membership measure due to its focus on network size rather than active participation. Despite their definition, Taks and Rocha (2022) measured only social cohesion in the context of Rio 2016. Winkelmann (2009) used the six-item Social Engagement scale (German Institute for Economic Research, 2004), measuring participation in networks and events. Lastly, Zhou et al. (2021) developed SEPSCS to measure trust, network, and reciprocity, providing researchers with a specific way to test sport participants’ social capital in the context of sport events.

Fourteen papers conducted research in the sport and physical activity participation contexts, including sport or physical activities participation (Ardahan, 2018; Atilgan and Tükel, 2021; Bailey et al., 2020; Downward et al., 2018; Jeon et al., 2016; Kesavayuth et al., 2022a; Kesavayuth et al., 2022b; Mcteer and Curtis, 1993; Mo et al., 2022; Niioka et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021; Winkelmann, 2009; Zhang et al., 2022) and sport participation events (i.e., Marathon events; Zhou et al., 2021). The majority of the papers have concentrated on social network and resources generated from social network, which is a more individualized way of measuring social capital. However, sport event participation like Marathon events were measured in a more collective way by using Putnam’s concept (1995) and SEPSCS. Overall, the participation type of context focused more on social networks, which implies the personal network and its benefits are highly valued in these contexts. Although the authors used various ways to measure social network, we suggest not only network size should be measured, but also other related aspects like contact and frequencies should be tested (e.g., Huxhold et al., 2013). A Generalized Trust and Online and Offline Bonding and Bridging scales can be used to operationalize trust or social network, respectively, in both online and offline sport participation contexts.

Five research (Bjørnskov, 2008; Kumar et al., 2019; Huxhold et al., 2013; Lee et al., 2016; Lera-López et al., 2021) were conducted in both sport participation and sport spectatorship contexts. Four studies out of five used a single-dimensional way to conceptualize social capital, including trust (Bjørnskov, 2008; Kumar et al., 2019) and social network/ relationships (Lera-López et al., 2021; Huxhold et al., 2013). Singular-dimensional ways to indicate social capital suggested a focused interest of how these singular aspects work in the overall social capital impacting hedonic well-being.

Two research were done in the sport spectatorship context (Lin, 2022; Taks and Rocha, 2022). Researchers all used Putnam’s concept to define social capital. Lin (2022) used a 19-item Social Capital Scale, and Taks and Rocha (2022) measured social cohesion. Three studies were done in the context of belonging to sport groups (Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra, 2017; Bartolini et al., 2008; Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015). All of the three studies were in line with Putnam’s (1995, 2000) way of conceptualizing social capital, and their focus was measuring trust, social network/social cohesion and reciprocity/volunteering in a more collective way. Social Capital Scale (Onyx and Bullen, 2000; Gibson et al., 2014) can be a sufficient measurement, for this is a multi-dimensional scale that includes trust, network and reciprocity. SEPSCS (Zhou et al., 2021) can be also utilized to test social capital in sport spectatorship context as sport spectatorship is a passive sport participation. The two scales are aligned with Putnam (1995)‘s social capital concept.

Hedonic well-being (SWB) is considered a multifaceted concept, primarily defined as self-rated life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect within sports and physical activity contexts (Diener, 1984; Diener et al., 1985; Diener et al., 2017; Diener et al., 2018). Eight studies in this review adhered to this definition (Atilgan and Tükel, 2021; Bailey et al., 2020; Jeon et al., 2016; Kesavayuth et al., 2022b; Niioka et al., 2020; Sun et al., 2021; Taks and Rocha, 2022; Zhang et al., 2022), while others also aligned with Diener’s core elements (Huxhold et al., 2013; Lin, 2022; Mo et al., 2022; Winkelmann, 2009). Additionally, six studies viewed happiness or life satisfaction as indicators of SWB (Bartolini et al., 2008; Bjørnskov, 2008; Downward et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2019; Lera-López et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2021), two equated SWB with positive feelings or satisfaction (Ardahan, 2018; Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra, 2017), two used SWB synonymously with happiness and life satisfaction (Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015; Mcteer and Curtis, 1993), and two more defined it as life satisfaction and mental health (Kesavayuth et al., 2022a; Lee et al., 2016). In summary, 62.5% (15 out of 24) of the articles used life satisfaction, happiness, affect, or psychological well-being as measures of hedonic well-being (Table 2). Nine of these 15 papers employed life satisfaction, while one used psychological well-being. Other studies took a multidimensional approach: five (20.8%) conceptualized hedonic well-being as life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect; two (8.3%) regarded it as a combination of life satisfaction and affect; and another two (8.3%) defined it as life satisfaction and mental health. Thus, the majority of sport and physical activity research conceptualizes hedonic well-being primarily through a single factor, like life satisfaction or happiness. Eight research (33.3%) conceptualized hedonic well-being by Diener’s work (Diener, 1984, 1994, 2000; Diener et al., 1985, 2017, 2018). The findings were in line with Huta and Waterman (2014), where most studies assessed hedonic well-being using one or more indicators of subjective well-being (i.e., life satisfaction, positive affect, and/or negative affect).

We identified 16 measurements of testing hedonic well-being in sport and physical activity context (Table 2), including (1) Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS; Diener et al., 1985), (2) the 20-item Positive and Negative Affect (Watson et al., 1988), (3) the 22-item Korean Emotional Experience Scale (Hong, 2004), (4) the Life Satisfaction Index K (LSIK; Koyano, 1990), (5) the five-item RAND Mental Health Inventory (Berwick et al., 1991; Stewart et al., 1992), (6) the four-item HAY (How are you?) Scale (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982), (7) one-item Overall Life Satisfaction (Helliwell and Putnam, 2004; Kavetsos and Szymanski, 2010), (8) a single item Happiness, (9) the 20-item Brief Subjective Well-Being Scale for Chinese Citizens (Xing, 2003), (10) the five-item Mental Health Inventory (MHI-5) (Rumpf et al., 2001), (11) the five-item Affect Scale (Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, 2018), (12) the three-item Life Satisfaction Scale (Connolly, 2013), (13) the eight-item Life Affect Scale (Diener, 2000), (14) the three-item Positive Feeling (Su et al., 2014), (15) the two-item Subjective Well-being (Portela et al., 2013), and (16) the eight-item Positive Subjective Exercise Experience Scale (SEES; MeAuley and Courneya, 1994).

Matched with the conceptualization of hedonic well-being, we found that the main way of measuring hedonic well-being was by using a single-item happiness/ life satisfaction (50%). The other main way of measuring hedonic well-being was by Diener et al. (1985) SWLS (5 items). Six research (25%) utilized this scale. Besides SWLS, two research measured participants’ affect by using the Positive and Negative Affect Scale and the Korean Emotional Experience Scale (Huxhold et al., 2013; Jeon et al., 2016). Mental health was adopted by researchers (Kesavayuth et al., 2022a; Lee et al., 2016) as one of the indicators of hedonic well-being by using the RAND Mental Health Inventory (Berwick et al., 1991; Stewart et al., 1992) and MHI-5 (Rumpf et al., 2001). Mcteer and Curtis (1993) used the Four-item HAY (How are you?) Scale (National Center for Health Statistics, 1982), a measurement of psychological well-being, to test subjective well-being. Sun et al. (2021) utilized four-item psychological well-being to represent the positive subjective feeling. However, mental health and psychological well-being are regarded as core indicators for eudaimonic well-being in previous research (Huta and Waterman, 2014).

In sport and physical activity participation contexts, researchers used life satisfaction and/or affect, which was matched with Diener’s way of conceptualizing hedonic well-being. Five-item Life Satisfaction Scale (Diener et al., 1985) was the main way to measure hedonic well-being in the sport participation context (Ardahan, 2018; Atilgan and Tükel, 2021; Bailey et al., 2020; Jeon et al., 2016). In the physical activity context, Niioka et al. (2020) used the Life Satisfaction Index K (LSIK) to evaluate subjective well-being in terms of life satisfaction, psychological state, and old age assessment targeting the elder people who took rehabilitation. In the Chinese square dance context, Sun et al. (2021) employed an eight-item SEES (MeAuley and Courneya, 1994) to evaluate elder female participants’ psychological well-being and psychological fatigue. Zhang et al. (2022) utilized a 20-item Brief Subjective Well-Being Scale for Chinese Citizens (Xing, 2003) for elder Chinese residents. These studies offer scales for assessing hedonic well-being in older populations.

All of the four research in sport participation and sport spectatorship contexts used happiness/ life satisfaction to indicate hedonic well-being, and one item-happiness/ satisfaction was the main measurement (Bjørnskov, 2008; Kumar et al., 2019; Lera-López et al., 2021). Matching with social capital in sport participation and sport spectatorship contexts, hedonic well-being also confronted a trend with a single-dimensional way of measurement. Similarly, in the context of belonging to sport groups, all of the three papers used happiness/ life satisfaction to conceptualize and test hedonic well-being.

In sport spectatorship context, researchers conceptualized hedonic well-being by life satisfaction and/or affect. Lin (2022) used two-item Subjective Well-being (Portela et al., 2013) to measure spectators’ SWB during the 2020 Chinese Professional Baseball League (CPBL) season. Taks and Rocha (2022), studying Rio 2016, measured hedonic well-being by using one-item Happiness (Kavetsos and Szymanski, 2010), three-item Life Satisfaction Scale (Connolly, 2013), and eight-item Life Affect Scale (Diener, 2000). These two research provided scales to measure SWB in spectating sport events. While the measurement in participatory sport is more related to life satisfaction, researchers studied sport spectating context also measured affect during and after the events.

Of the 24 articles in this review, 17 (70.8%) showed a positive association between social capital and hedonic well-being, four (16.7%) identified no direct relationship, and three (12.5%) reported mixed results (Table 3).

For the findings related to the impact of sports and physical activities, 13 studies (54.2%) reported a positive association among sport-related factors, social capital and/or hedonic well-being, four studies (16.7%) reported no obvious influence from sport or physical activities, and three studies (12.5%) reported mixed results. Two out of the 13 studies reported hedonic well-being positively impacted the frequency of participation in physical activities (Downward et al., 2018; Kesavayuth et al., 2022b). Other studies (Jeon et al., 2016; Lin, 2022; Niioka et al., 2020; Zhou et al., 2021) did not report the influence of sport-related activities, but their targets or contexts were related to sports or physical activities.

For the 17 studies indicating positive relationships between social capital and hedonic well-being, one (5.9%) evaluated social cohesion, two (11.8%) gauged social trust, three (17.6%) assessed social support, and four (23.5%) examined social networks. Seven studies (41.2%) utilized three indicators to measure social capital, with five out of these seven adopting Putnam’s definition. These five found a positive correlation between social capital and hedonic well-being, although two reported that networks (or memberships) did not show statistical significance (Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015; Zhou et al., 2021). Matsushima and Matsunaga (2015) highlighted the inadequate measurement of membership, and Zhou et al. (2021) suggested examining bonding and bridging social capital in sports event contexts. Based on the research included in this review (Huxhold et al., 2013; Winkelmann, 2009), it is recommended to measure social networks not only by size but also by contact frequency and social engagement.

Among the four studies reporting no direct relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being, Kumar et al. (2019) found an indirect association mediated by health, while Huxhold et al. (2013) and Niioka et al. (2020) reported indirect associations through emotional support and social activity engagement, and no correlation in a rehabilitation context, respectively. Notably, the latter two focused on older individuals, emphasizing the importance of social network size and engagement for successful aging. In future research with similar target groups, broader measurements of social capital are recommended. Taks and Rocha (2022), defining social capital by Putnam (2000), found no significant influence of social cohesion on subjective well-being post-Rio 2016, suggesting a more multidimensional approach, including measurements of trust and norm, could better indicate social capital.

For mixed results, Lee et al. (2016) found offline bonding social capital consistently related to life satisfaction and mental health, while online bridging social capital was only significantly associated with overall life satisfaction. Bartolini et al. (2008) revealed a positive relationship between non-relational social capital and hedonic well-being, but a negative correlation with extrinsic-motivated Relational Social Capital (RSC). This study underscored the role of motivations when assessing social capital. Lera-López et al. (2021) found that family relationships, but not friendships, were positively associated with happiness, highlighting the mediating role of social groups in social capital and hedonic well-being relationships. Furthermore, the double-edged nature of social capital, as discussed by Villalonga-Olives and Kawachi (2017), calls for more research into its negative effects on hedonic well-being in sport and physical activity contexts.

The included articles in this review provided empirical evidence for the relationships between social capital and hedonic well-being in various sport and physical activity contexts (Table 4). These studies advanced knowledge regarding how social capital associated with hedonic well-being through sport and physical activities. Zhou et al. (2021) validated Sport Event Participation Social Capital Scale, offering a reliable measurement for social capital outcomes through sport event participation. This study also revealed that marathon participants’ social capital positively relates to hedonic well-being. Kesavayuth et al. (2022b) tested the mediating role of social capital. Social capital and physical activity were two significant mediators between hedonic well-being and elder residents’ physical health. Policymakers can enhance the elders’ well-being and physical health through physical activity through social capital and physical activity (Kesavayuth et al., 2022b). These studies highlighted the importance of social capital and physical activity on individuals’ hedonic well-being. Researchers also tested the sport spectatorship (i.e., passive sport participation). Lee et al. (2016) reported bridging social capital had a positive relationship with hedonic well-being when people spectated basketball game, football game, and other sport events online. Lera-López et al. (2021) found that passive sport participation (i.e., spectating sport events) had a higher correlation with hedonic well-being compared with active physical activity participation (i.e., walking). Lin (2022) found that professional baseball spectators’ social capital positively was associated with hedonic well-being. These studies showed that passive sport participation can play an important role when developing an individual’s social capital and hedonic well-being. However, the studies included in the scoping review were conducted within a single country (Table 3), limiting the generalization across diverse cultural contexts. Nineteen studies only utilized a cross-sectional study design (Table 3), so potential biased inferences may exist (Bowen and Wiersema, 1999). Future research should focus more on the multi-cultural contexts and longitudinal study design.

This scoping screened papers without quantitative data based on exclusion criteria to gain sufficient quantitative support and identify the measurement of social capital and hedonic well-being. In addition, this scoping review only covered papers written and published in English, which possibly led to language bias. Lastly, since 83.3% of studies in this review were cross-sectional (Table 3), future research should adopt a longitudinal design to better substantiate the relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being across time.

The conceptual vagueness of social capital (Bjørnskov, 2008) prompts both single and multi-dimensional measurements. Single-dimensional measurements, often seen in panel survey data studies, are time-efficient yet potentially risky due to over-reliance on social networks. Matsushima and Matsunaga (2015) and Zhou et al. (2021) suggest that when assessing social networks, factors such as frequency, density, and engagement should also be considered, not just network size. Hedonic well-being, as defined by Diener (1994) and Downward et al. (2018), encompasses life satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect. Despite this, only two out of the eight studies in this review that used Diener’s definition measured positive and negative affects alongside life satisfaction. Therefore, future studies should consider comprehensive measurements of hedonic well-being, using tools such as the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener et al., 1985), and the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) (Watson et al., 1988; Thompson, 2007). In sport and physical activity contexts, the relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being is primarily positive. However, some studies reported no direct relationship or mixed results, especially when participants have harsh health conditions (Kumar et al., 2019; Niioka et al., 2020). Hence, it is crucial to delve into these variances in future research. The exploration of the potential downside of social capital or negative social capital within sports and physical activities can also enrich our understanding of its influence in these fields. Therefore, this review calls for further comprehensive research on social capital and hedonic well-being, highlighting the need for more nuanced measurements and considerations of different contexts within the sport and physical activity sphere.

Future studies could focus more on differentiating the role of bonding and bridging social capital. Only one study measured and discussed bonding and bridging social capital in the online and offline sport contexts in the scoping review. Further, as four studies reported no direct relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being (Huxhold et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2019; Niioka et al., 2020; Taks and Rocha, 2022), future research could conduct more research with the mediators for the relationship. This scoping review identified social engagement (Huxhold et al., 2013), emotional support (Huxhold et al., 2013), self-compassion (Jeon et al., 2016), health-promoting behaviors (Mo et al., 2022), and income level (Sun et al., 2021) as mediators. Huxhold et al. (2013) discussed that an individual’s social network structure (i.e., network size and contact frequency) was found to have no direct effects on SWB, whereas it appears to influence health and SWB indirectly by enhancing emotional support and engagement in social activities. Jeon et al. (2016) reported that self-compassion played a partially mediating role between social support and SWB. Mo et al. (2022) revealed the mediating role of health-promoting behaviors (e.g., physical activities) between social support and SWB for young people under 35. Sun et al. (2021) found out income level played a partial mediation role in their research as subjective exercise experience still predicted group cohesion significantly with controlling income level as a mediator. Future researchers could test the detailed mechanism between social capital and hedonic well-being with these mediators in sport and physical activity contexts.

As mixed results were reported (Bartolini et al., 2008; Lee et al., 2016; Lera-López et al., 2021), future research could identify potential moderators that may moderate the relationship between social capital and hedonic well-being in the sport contexts. For the moderators, we identified age (Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015) and other possible moderators, including positive/ passive lifestyle (Ardahan, 2018), formal/ informal groups (Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra, 2017; Bjørnskov, 2008), sports/ leisure activity (Bailey et al., 2020), intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation (Bartolini et al., 2008) and medical health (Mo et al., 2022). Matsushima and Matsunaga (2015) reported that age categories can moderate the relationship between volunteering, one of the indicators of social capital, and happiness. They uncovered the moderating role of the age category between volunteering and happiness. Individuals in their 50s who have volunteered are more likely to report lower levels of happiness compared to those who are aged 60 or above (Matsushima and Matsunaga, 2015, p. 1041). For possible moderators, according to Ardahan (2018), individuals who volunteered tended to prefer engaging in active sports and physical activities, whereas non-volunteers tended to prefer more passive leisure activities. Volunteers exhibited higher levels of social capital and reported higher levels of life satisfaction compared to non-volunteers. Awaworyi Churchill and Mishra (2017) identified that membership in sport groups and self-help groups had a significant relationship with well-being, whereas the membership in professional, educational and church groups did not contain significant association. Bjørnskov (2008) captured sociability from formal and informal activities. Formal activities are organized (e.g., volunteer work, club meetings, and church attendance), while informal activities (e.g., picnics, camping, and sport-related activities) are not needed to be pre-planned or formally organized. They reported that informal sociability contained a weak relevance to happiness, while formal sociability had a negative but insignificant relationship with happiness. Bailey et al. (2020) detected that social participation generated from leisure activity had a significant and positive association with well-being for autistic university students, but participation in sports was negatively related to well-being. Bartolini et al. (2008) discovered social capital generated from intrinsic groups (Putnam’s groups) had a positive association with happiness, while social capital generated from extrinsic groups (Olson’s groups) contained a negative relationship with happiness. Putnam’s groups included groups that people attended due to their intrinsic motivation, such as sport clubs, national organizations, and hobby clubs; Olson’s groups contained groups that people participated because of extrinsic motives, such as fraternity organizations, professional organizations and unions (Putnam, 1995; Olson, 1982; Bartolini et al., 2008). These results suggested that the moderating role of intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivations can be further explored. An individual’s physical health and mental health may moderate the role between social capital and hedonic well-being (Mo et al., 2022). These potential moderators could be explored between social capital and hedonic well-being in sport and physical activity contexts.