Transcript View/Open

Integration in Social Networks as a form of Social
Capital: Evidence from a survey on Social Cohesion
Bram Vanhoutte & Marc Hooghe
Centre for Political Science, KULeuven, Belgium
Sunbelt XXX, July 3rd, Riva, Italy
Outline
• Test of Normative Social Capital approach
• Which people have what networks?
• What kind of networks are related to social capital
attitudes?
• Which kind of networks does participation in
associational life foster?
Social Capital
• Structure (networks) + Content (attitudes/resources)
(~De Toqueville, 1835; Durkheim, 1915)
• Not only beneficial for individuals, but also positive
externalities on community level (Putnam, 1993)
• Many and diverse applications of social capital, but
measurement of basic structural concept rather limited,
e.g. participation in associations
• Wide range of informal relations have an impact on the
individual, and networks produce different attitudes
according to their composition, size and intensity
Social Capital
• Normative View (Putnam 2000)
– Trust generated by participation in diverse networks
• But ….
– To what extent participation reflects a more diverse
network structure ?
– Does participation foster bonding or bridging ties?
Bonding Social Ties
• Birds of a feather flock together (Lazarsfeld & Merton
1954)
• Bonding capital (~Social cohesion)
– Strong ties between similar people
– Emotional support networks
– Thick trust generated by intensive regular contact
• Possible negative outcomes: exclusive groups, parochial
norms, social control
Bridging Social Ties
• Connections between “different” people
• Bridging or Linking Capital
– Weaker ties (Granovetter 1973)
– Necessary for integration in diverse society of today
– Mainly positive outcomes: lowers prejudice, widens perspective
• Identity Bridging: bridging culturally defined differences
– Linked to normative approach to social capital (Putnam)
• Status Bridging: bridging socio-economical differences
– Linked to resource approach to social capital (Lin)
Hypotheses
H1: Young, male, higher educated have a larger
close network and more network diversity.
Women have more frequent contact with their
close network
H2: Generalized trust positively associated with all
network measures. Ethnocentrism negatively
associated with diverse networks.
H3: Participation fosters (identity)bridging ties
Data and operationalisation
• Data: SCIF (Social Cohesion Indicators Flanders)
– Survey, designed to allow multilevel research
– Fieldwork April-July 2009, n=2080
– Egocentric network measures
• Dependant: 4 network measures
–
–
–
–
Close network size (Bonding)
Frequency of close network contact (Bonding)
Identity diversity of wider network (Bridging)
Status diversity of wider network (Bridging)
Flemish region, Belgium (pop. 6,000,000)
SCIF-survey: 2080 respondents in 40 municipalities
Close network size
• Total network size is unreliable, and less interesting for
social capital
• With how many people do you talk about intimate
matters?
– In your family
– In your friends-circle
• Indicator is sum of these two items, since both family
and friends to whom one talks about intimate matters
can be considered close ties
• Size of close network can be seen as a measure for
social support
Close network intensity
• Strong ties form through frequent contact, (Homans
1955) so frequency of contact is a good measure for the
strength of bonding ties
• How often do you….?(never (0) – several times a week (5))
– Visit family
– Invite friends
• Indicator is sum of both item frequencies. Family you
visit and friends you invite at home can be considered
close ties
Identity diversity
• Do you have a friend …? (Yes/No)
–
–
–
–
–
With a different religious orientation
With a different ethnic background
With a different sexual orientation
Of a different generation (at least 20 years of difference)
With different political ideas
• Using item response theory (Mokken-scaling) these items prove to
be one coherent scale (H=.40)
• Most common diversity by political ideas and generations
• “Difficult” forms of diversity are religious orientation and ethnic
background
Status diversity
• Use of position generator (Lin & Dumin 1986)
• With which occupations do you have contact in daily life?
Do you know a … in your family ? Or among your friends
? Or among your acquaintances?
– These questions were asked for a list of 20
occupations, varying in socio-economic status.
• We use the number of occupations of these 20 that
respondents could access, which is a very parsimonous
and simple measure for status diversity in one’s network
Social Capital Attitudes
• Generalized trust:
– Can’t be carefull enough - Most people to be trusted?
– Most people would try to abuse – would try to be honest
– People think only about themselves – try to be helpfull
• Ethnocentrism: Did people coming to live here from other
countries
– Enrich or undermine cultural life ?
– Made the economical situation better or worse?
– Made the country a better or worse place to live?
Research Strategy
• A) Explain network measures by social
background
• B) Explain attitudes by background and
network measures
• C) Explain participation by by background
and network measures
Results
Networks & Background
Close Network
size
Age (-)
Education (+)
Close Network
Intensity
Age (-)
Female (++)
Education (+)
Identity Diversity
Age (--)
Male (+)
Education (++)
Status Diversity
Age (--)
Male (+)
Living with partner (+)
Education (++)
Results
Networks & Background
• Bonding ties in line with expectations
– Higher educated more social support
– Older people less social support
– Women more intensive contact, and more contact
with family
• Possible influence of other variables (psychological) in
bonding ties (low goodness of fit)
• Diversity of network influenced heavily by own
background
Results
Attitudes & Networks
Generalised
Trust
Close Network Size (++)
Close Network Intensity (+)
Education (+)
Ethnocentrism
Close Network Size (--)
Close Network Intensity (-)
Identity Diversity (--)
Participation (-)
Age (+)
Education (-)
Results
Attitudes & Networks
• Generalised Trust is related to bonding , and not
bridging ties
• Ethnocentrism next to identity bridging also
influenced strongly by bonding Ties
• => Bonding of utmost importance for social
capital attitudes, more than a diverse network
Results
Participation
Participation
(general)
Close Network Intensity (+)
Status Diversity (+)
Male (+)
Education (+)
•Which associations do go together with a more diverse
network in terms of identity?
•cultural, political, religious or philosophical
associations.
•Other forms of participation more related to bridging socioeconomic diversity
Conclusions
• Social background has strong effects on bridging networks, less on
bonding
• Generalised trust depends more on bonding then bridging ties
• Ethnocentrism related to bonding, identity bridging, small additional
effect from participation
• Participation related to more intensive close network ties and
socioeconomic network diversity, not necessarily cultural diversity
• Attitudes do not seem to emerge from social networks in the
expected way
• Participation more related to bonding ties and socio-economic
diversity than cultural diversity