AN EXAMINATION OF PUTNAM’S, COLEMAN’S, AND BOURDIEU’S

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE STRUCTURAL

DIFFERENCES ACROSS CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER GROUPS

A Dissertation

Presented to

The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron

In Partial Fulfillment

of the Requirements for the Degree

Doctor of Philosophy

Elizabeth R. B. Grossman

December, 2013
 AN EXAMINATION OF PUTNAM’S, COLEMAN’S, AND BOURDIEU’S

CONCEPTUALIZATIONS OF SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE STRUCTURAL

DIFFERENCES ACROSS CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER GROUPS

Elizabeth R. B. Grossman

Dissertation

Approved: Accepted:

______________________________ ______________________________
Advisor Department Chair
Dr. Rebecca J. Erickson Dr. Matthew Lee

______________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Dean of the College
Dr. Cheryl Elman Dr. Chand Midha

______________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. Juan Xi Dr. George R. Newkome

______________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Date
Dr. Clare L. Stacey

______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Karl Kaltenthaler

ii
 ABSTRACT

This dissertation explores the form and function of social capital, both theoretically and

empirically, to understand how it operates within the context of socio-demographic groups

based on race, gender and class. Specifically, this study (1) examines major theories of social

capital to identify points of comparison and contrast; (2) operationalizes social capital in

ways that are theoretically consistent with each approach; and (3) examines each theoretically

structured empirical model to determine the extent to which it captures the meaningful

experience of social capital across race, gender, and class. The study uses data from the 2000

Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey to create and examine three distinct models of

social capital drawn from the theories of Robert Putnam, James Coleman, and Pierre

Bourdieu. Confirmatory factor analysis is used to test how well the theoretical models fit the

data and multi-sample structural equation modeling (SEM) is used to test hypotheses

regarding significant differences in the structure of social capital across race, gender, and

class groups. Structural differences in social capital were found for all three socio-

demographic groups. However, the findings were not consistent across models. For example,

although differences by race were found across all three social capital models, class and

gender did not generate similar results. Theoretical and empirical implications for future

work on social capital are discussed.

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost I need to thank and extend all my love to my husband, Michael

and my daughter Rebekah. Michael’s unfailing support, love, and home cooked meals

are what helped me get through this incredible journey. He is the first person who

believed and encouraged me to pursue my doctorate in Sociology, and support was key to

my completing this degree and dissertation. Thank you seems so small for all that you

have done, but nonetheless, thank you, sweetheart for sharing your strength and faith in

me, for always believing that I could finish, and for giving me the space and time I

needed to write.

My daughter was born after I finished my comprehensive exams. Since her

arrival she has been a beacon of light and joy in my life. Rebekah has sacrificed much in

her young years for “Mommy’s Dissertation”, including but not limited to: bedtime

stories, time with mom, and dealing with stressed out mom. It is because of her that I not

once gave up on finishing this project. For you my darling, I would do anything.

Beautiful girl, follow your dreams and never give up, even when it gets hard. You can do

anything you focus on and whatever your dream is, I believe in you, always. I owe a

great deal to my husband and my daughter, go team Grossman!

I would like to take a moment to properly thank my dissertation committee for

their part in guiding my efforts, without their expertise and unfailing support this

iv
dissertation would not be what it is. Thank you to Dr. Rebecca J. Erickson, Dr. Cheryl

Elman, Dr. Juan Xi, Dr. Clare L. Stacey, and Dr. Karl Kaltenthaler. While Dr. Plagens

had to leave for another institution, I would also like to thank him for his comments and

feedback on my dissertation proposal defense.

To my advisor and chair of my dissertation committee, Becky, thank you seems

short shrift for the long road you have walked with me. You were always there to

support me, thank you for pushing me to reach further and go forward regardless of how

worried or scared I was. Thank you for sharing your brilliance and amazing energy with

me. I have learned so much from you. You are an accomplished and inspiring teacher

and I feel damn lucky to have had the opportunity to learn from you. Thank you for

everything that you did as my advisor, acting as a mentor, and being a friend when life

was throwing me boulders and expecting me to catch. Finally, when I first brought you

this project, I argued that it should be purely theoretical, thank you for making me do an

empirical dissertation. Yes, you were right, it is better this way. You have earned my

eternal thanks and support many times over. Thank you for being a true mentor,

professor, and friend.

For Cheryl, there is no end to your brilliance and positivity. Whenever I would

feel like the end would never come, you would point out how far I had come and your

positive outlook did more for me than I can ever truly express. Thank you so much for

believing in me, for being a mentor throughout my tenure at the University. I cannot tell

you how much I value our conversations and your input on this project. I wish you the

v
very best in your next journey at Duke, they have no idea how lucky they are to have you

there.

Joann I want to thank you so much for helping me to make sense of SEM and my

statistical models. Thank you for always finding time to meet with me when I needed

guidance, you are a very talented academic and a joy to work with, thank you so much. I

sincerely hope to work with you again. Thank you to Clare who stayed with me through

my comprehensive exam in inequality, the proposal, and then also the dissertation. Your

continuous support and advice have been irreplaceable during this process, thank you.

You were right, quality and reliable childcare is the key! Thank you to Dr. Kaltenthaler

from political science who helped me back at the very beginning of my doctorate work

when I thought I would study terrorist networks. That particular interest did not pan out

for me, but I thank you for your time and knowledge on the topic. Thank you for your

time and input on this project as well, I cannot tell you how much I appreciate it.

As I am writing these acknowledgements I cannot help but reflect back on the

entire process and I would like to express my thanks to professors whose mentorship and

teaching over the years helped to make me who I am today as a Sociologist. First, to Dr.

Andre Christie-Mizell, thank you so much for your support, guidance, and friendship- I

learned so much in your classes and appreciate the opportunity you provided to do

research and publish together. Most importantly for this project, thank you so much for

taking time out of your busy schedule to teach me multi-sample SEM long-distance.

Thank you for your help, guidance, knowledge, and support throughout my doctoral

scholarship.

vi
 Then also, to Dr. Kathy Feltey, thank you for always believing in me and giving

advice when I was clearly in need of it! I am grateful to know you and grateful for the

chance to learn from you. Dr. Matt Lee, it has been a true pleasure to work for someone

who takes a humanistic approach to life and academics. Thank you so much for the time

and guidance that you gave, and for remembering me even though many might have

written me off, thank you. For Dr. Peralta, thank you so much for your advice and

feedback on the process. Your summary of where I was in the process and how close I

was to finishing was a beacon of light when things seemed so dark. Dr. Mark Tausig,

thank you so much for always offering support and advice, it was helpful to know that

should I need your help, I had only to ask. In truth I want to thank the faculty at the

University of Akron who over the years I have had the distinct pleasure of getting to

know each of you and value your advice, research, and teaching. Finally, to my first

mentor in sociology, Dr. Shelley Smith, who believed in me and supported me continuing

on to earn my doctorate and to Dr. John Skvoretz, for peaking my interest in social

networks and reflecting back to me that I had a proclivity for Sociology, or as you once

put it, “you just get it”.

For my family, who are always a wellspring of love and support, I am eternally

grateful. Thank you so much to my mom, I love you with all of my heart. It is not just

for all of the times I had to put this project first, it is for all the love and support you have

given for every project in my life, and believing in me. Thank you to her husband, Jim,

and my brother Brooks for their unfailing support and belief that I can do this thing also.

vii
 To my dad and Peggy, thank you so much for your understanding, constant faith,

and love. I adore and love both of you and appreciate everything you do. Thanks to my

sister Dawn and her family for their support and love as well. Thank you to my

Grandma, my Aunt Lois and Julie, Aunt Dottie and Uncle Carlos, Ali, Anna, Eric, and

Uncle John and Aunt Charlotte. Your light and love have helped to light my way.

Grandma, thank you so much for your words of advice, I carry with me always. Thank

you to my cousin Mark and Jean Anne, to my cousins and extended family as well.

Thank you to my husband’s family, most especially my mother-in-law, Irina. Thank you

to my fictive kin, Shyla Vesitis, Lymy (Jennifer Lymneos), and the Divers’ family. I am

forever thankful to have you in my life, you have brought humor, love, and perspective

when it was dearly needed, thank you. To all of my family, thank you for sharing in my

joys, my triumphs and helping me stand back up when I fall.

To all of my friends and colleagues, what a ride! Thank you to Dr. Rachel Stein, I

cannot imagine going through grad school without you. Thank you for watching the

beasts, sharing a smoke, sharing a laugh, hug, drink, advice, and smile, and most of all

for being my friend. Thank you so much to my friends for being there when I needed

you most, to Aya Kimura Ada, Jodi Ross, Stacye Blount, Jean Anne Sutherland, Jeanine

Gailey, Ariane Prohaska, Wendy Grove, Michelle Bemiller, Rachel Schneider, Suzanne

Slusser, Angela Atkins, Daysha Lawerence, Lori Tuttle, Martina Sharp-Grier, Dani Jauk,

Monica, Nic, Peter, Kelsey, and Marcella. Jodi, thank you for the great conversations

and time spent discussing theory, I am grateful to you for our time together. To my

office buddies, Richelle Dykstra and Dave Skubby, thank you so much for being such

viii
great roomies and friends. Thank you to the office staff and support staff at the

University of Akron, beginning with Jill and now finishing with Tammy Dixon. I would

also like to thank Dee for his constant support. A big thank you to Cindy Saylor Steinel,

the web Goddess and friend, without you I would have been lost technologically.

To all of my Cottey sisters, your love and friendship has been a sustaining force in

my life and I am and always will be grateful to you all, “friends we are and friends we’ll

always be…” for life, with all of my love, thank you.

Thank you to those whose love I hold in my heart, my Granny and Pa, Rita and

Bob Brooks, my Grandfather, George Baseler, my ‘Aunt’ Lizzie, my cousin Eric, and my

baby. Your love is always with me, thank you.

ix
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES…………..………………………………………………………..…xii

LIST OF FIGURES ………………….…………………………………………………xiv

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION………………………..…………………………………………….1

Social Capital……....…...…………………………………………………………4

II. THEORY…………………………..............................................................................10

Putnam’s Social Capital: Bonding and Bridging………………………………...11

Coleman’s Social Capital………………………………………………………...18

Bourdieu’s Social Capital………………………………………………………..28

Social Capital’s Socio-Demographic Application……………………………….34

Research Questions and Hypotheses……………..……………………………...43

III. DATA AND METHODS……………………... …………………………………...46

Missing Data…...………………………………………………………………...48

Measurement…….……………………………………………………………….51

Analytic Strategy………..……………………………………………………….66

IV. BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL MODELS……………………..………………....72

Descriptive Statistics………...…………………………………………………...73

Putnam’s Social Capital Model…………...……………………………………..77

x
 Coleman’s Social Capital Model…………...……………………………………91

Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model……………………………………………….100

V. SOCIAL CAPITAL ASSOCIATED WITH CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER……112

Putnam’s Social Capital Model…………...……………………………………112

Coleman’s Social Capital Model…………...…………………………………..134

Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model……………………………………………….146

VI. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION………………………………………………...172

Putnam: Summary of Results…………..……………………………………….173

Coleman: Summary of Results…………..……………………………………..181

Bourdieu: Summary of Results…………..……………………………………..185

Contributions……..…………………………………………………………….191

Limitations Across Models……………………………………………………..193

Suggestions For Future Research…………….………………………………...194

REFERENCES………..………………………………………………………………..198

APPENDICES………………………………………………………………………….210

APPENDIX A: SOCIAL CAPITAL COMMUNITY BENCHMARK SURVEY

MEASURES FOR SOCIAL CAPITAL BY THEORIST…………...………………..211

APPENDIX B: BIVARIATE CORRELATION MATRIXES BY THEORIST…......228

xi
 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

4.1 Descriptive Statistics for Social Capital Measures………………...…….............77

4.2 Explanatory Factor Analysis (EFA) – Putnam’s Social Capital Model…………81

4.3 Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the CALIS
Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Fit Statistics – Putnam Social Capital
Model…………………………………………………………………………….86

4.4 EFA for Coleman’s Three Forms of Social Capital – Rotated Factor Pattern,
Standardized Results……………………………………………………………..92

4.5 CFA – Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the
CALIS Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Fit Statistics – Coleman’s
Social Capital Model……………………………………………………………..97

4.6 EFA for Bourdieu’s Social Capital – Rotated Factor Pattern, Standardized
Loadings………………………………………………………………………...104

4.7 CFA – Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the
CALIS Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis – Fit Statistics – Bourdieu’s
Social Capital Model……………………………………………………………108

5.1 Fit Statistics for Putnam’s Social Capital Model Using Multi-Sample SEM Social
Class in the Sample, 2000……………………………..……………………….115

5.2 Fit Statistics for Putnam’s Social Capital Model Using Multi-Sample SEM of
Race in the Sample, 2000………………………………………………..……..126

5.3 Fit Statistics for Putnam’s Social Capital Model Multi-Sample SEM with Gender
and Social Capital………………………………………………………………134

5.4 Fit Statistics for Coleman’s Social Capital Model, Multi-Sample Structural
Equation Modeling for Social Class………………………………..…………..136

5.5 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Race and Social Capital in the Sample,
2000………………………………………………………………………..……138
xii
5.6 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Gender and Social Capital in the Sample,
2000………………………………………………………………………….….146

5.7 Fit Statistics for Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model, Multi-Sample SEM for Social
Class, U.S., 2000………………………………………………………………..148

5.8 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Race and Bourdieu’s Social Capital in the
Sample, 2000…………………………………………………………...……….157

5.9 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Gender and Bourdieu’s Social Capital in
the Sample, 2000………………………………………………………….....….165

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

4.1 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues for Putnam’s Social Capital Mode…………………...79

4.2 Putnam’s Social Capital Theoretical Model…………………………………......83

4.3 CFA Measurement Model for Putnam’s Social Capital (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta)……………………………………………………….90

4.4 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues, EFA, Coleman………………………………………93

4.5 Coleman’s Social Capital Measurement Model…………………………………95

4.6 CFA Measurement Model for Coleman’s Social Capital (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta)……………………………………………………...100

4.7 Scree Plot of Eigenvalues, EFA, Bourdieu……………………………………..103

4.8 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Measurement Model……………………………..…106

4.9 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Measurement Model, (unstandardized beta, [t-

score], standardized Beta)……………………………………………...………111

5.1 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Lower Social Class (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes for Lower Class: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.96,
NFI 0.84…………………………………………………………………….…..117

5.2 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Middle Social Class (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes Middle Class: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.96, NFI
0.79……………………………………………………………………..……….120

5.3 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Upper Social Class, (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes Upper Class: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.96, NFI
0.84……………………………………………………………………………...125

5.4 Putnam’s Social Capital Model, Whites in the Sample, 2000 (unstandardized beta,
[t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI 0.98, NFI
0.92……………………………………………………………………………...128
xiv
5.5 Putnam’s Social Capital Model, Non-Whites in the Sample, 2000 (unstandardized
beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.94, NFI 0.73
…………………………………………………………………………………..132

5.6 Coleman’s Social Capital Model Multi-Sample SEM for Whites in 2000,
(unstandardized beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI
0.99, NFI 0.94.……………………………………………………….…………140

5.7 Coleman’s Social Capital Model Multi-Sample SEM for Non-Whites in 2000,
(unstandardized beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.06, GFI
0.96, NFI 0.80……………………………………..……………………………143

5.8 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Lower Social Class, model 1,
(unstandardized beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.08, GFI
0.96, NFI 0.81……………………………………..………………………...….150

5.9 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Middle Social Class, model 1,
(unstandardized beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.05, GFI
0.98, NFI 0.92……………………………………..……………………………153

5.10 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Upper Social Class, model 1,
(unstandardized beta, [t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.10, GFI
0.93, NFI 0.75……………………………………..……………………………156

5.11 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Whites, model 1, (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.05, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.93……160

5.12 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Non-Whites, model 2, (unstandardized beta,
[t-score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.09, GFI 0.95, NFI 0.79....163

5.13 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Women, model 1, (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.03,GFI 0.99, NFI 0.95…….167

5.14 Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Men, model 2, (unstandardized beta, [t-
score], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.94...…169

xv
 CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Social capital is a “force majeure” within the social sciences. It has emerged as a

cross-disciplinary concept with broad theoretical power. Among researchers, social

capital operates as an important moderator and mediator in regard to inequality outcomes

(educational, income, social mobility) as well as health and well-being, civic engagement

and social solidarity (Coleman 1989; Field 2003; Lin1999; Lin 2007; Parks-Yancy,

DiTomaso, and Post 2008; Putnam 2000; Putnam et al. 2004; Putnam 1993, 2000).

Despite these strengths, a basic question remains: What is social capital? Although

scholars continue to make claims about its importance, different theoretical approaches

yield different conceptualizations of social capital and, not surprisingly,

operationalization of the concept varies widely across studies. As such, scholarship

related to social capital would benefit from a systematic examination of how key

theoretical treatments conceptualize the term and lead to potentially distinct

operationalizations. In addition, a test of the relative power of these theoretically

consistent measures to capture the experiences of different racial, gender, and class

groups would advance social scientific theory and research on social capital in

meaningful ways. This dissertation seeks to achieve these goals.

Researchers frequently use a global measure of social capital that emerges from

the tendency to view it as a universal concept, that is, one that is true for all groups at all

1
times (Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000). In contrast, I concur with others (Lin 2001;

Nieminen, Martelin, Koskinen, Simpura, Alanen, Harkanen, and Aromaa 2008; Parks-

Yancy, DiTomaso, and Post 2008) who suggest that different groups living in different

contexts with various experiences are likely to experience social capital differently. For

example, Parks-Yancy et al. (2008) note that while “[m]ost discussions of social capital

take for granted that group members are culturally similar”, they argue that social capital

should include socio-demographic variables such as class, race and gender (240). This

view is consistent with that of Lin (2001) who calls for more research on social capital

and the work of Nieminen et al. (2008) whose study found important differences in social

capital along gender lines.

Although studies have drawn on various theories of social capital and some have

even focused on measurement issues, none have attempted to: (1) examine major theories

of social capital to identify points of comparison and contrast; (2) operationalize social

capital in ways that are theoretically consistent with each approach; and (3) examine each

theoretically structured empirical model to determine the extent to which they capture the

meaningful experience of social capital among different socio-demographic groups (i.e.,

race, class, and gender)1. In order to better understand social capital within the context of

such socio-demographics as race, gender and class, the current study explores the form

and function of social capital both theoretically and empirically. In so doing, I address

two main questions. First, are Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s conceptualizations

of social capital supported empirically? Theory and method are intricately intertwined

and tied to empirical data (Cohen 1989). The three theorists’ conceptualizations of social

1
While there are other socio-demographic aspects that could be included, the available literature shows that
(aside from age), these are the three major points of interest with regard to inequality in our society (Parks-
Yancy et al. 2008).

2
capital are used across disciplines and in many varied ways throughout the literature.

However, researchers have tended to assume that the theories are being used in

appropriate ways and accurately reflect what is empirically observable. Although

reflective of observable reality, theories are nonetheless abstract. In contrast, data are

observable facts that are collected and studied. It would be easy to put the two side by

side and assume that the theory reflects the data. In this dissertation, however, I do not

assume such consistency but instead assess the extent to which empirical survey data can

be used to create sound theoretical models of social capital for Putnam, Coleman and

Bourdieu. The current dissertation research also addresses a second question: Does the

structure of social capital operate differently along class, race and gender lines for

Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s empirically supported social capital models?

The three potential contributions of this research, which comes from a mainly

sociological approach, include a foundational approach to the question of social capital,

adding to the understanding of what social capital is, and finally the findings herein

provide multi-dimensional models based on theory that could potentially be applied in a

variety of ways and across samples.

There are four major parts to this dissertation. First, in the remaining sections of

chapter one, I introduce the concept of social capital, develop a working definition for it,

and review the general social capital literature. In chapter two, I provide a detailed

outline of the three major theoretical frameworks of social capital that emerge from the

work of James Coleman, Robert Putnam, and Pierre Bourdieu. In this section, I further

develop the argument that theorists and researchers using the concept of social capital

need to be careful about making assumptions that treat actors’ social structural positions

3
as equivalent or assuming that social statuses do not impact how social capital operates in

people’s lives. To provide support for this argument, I review the literature that examines

the operation of social capital across class, race, and gender groups. In chapter three, I

introduce the data, the measures, and discuss the analytic strategy. I also provide a

thorough discussion of how missing data were handled as well as other methodological

and analytic concerns. In chapter four the three models (drawn from Putnam, Coleman,

and Bourdieu) are presented and the results of the confirmatory factor analysis used to

address Research Question one are reported for each theorists’ model. That is I examine

each theorists’ conceptualization of social capital empirically using confirmatory factor

analysis, the findings from this analysis directly impact the analysis in the following

chapter by socio-demographic groups. Should the model(s) not fit for the confirmatory

factor analysis, then it would not be used for further analyses. Chapter five reports the

results of the multi-sample structural equation analyses for each social capital model and

by class, race, and gender where appropriate. These results test the hypotheses

introduced at the end of chapter two. Finally, chapter six summarizes the empirical

results, the limitations of the study, and the implications of my findings for current and

future research on social capital.

Social Capital

Some scholars argue that social capital has become increasingly popular because

it captures our sociological imaginations and allows us to socialize the economic concept

of capital (Lichterman 2006). Others suggest that social capital is a way for us to refocus

our attention away from the individual and toward social constructs, and to do so in a

4
way that does not demote agency (i.e., individual activity) (Field 2003). Still others

argue that its popularity is due to its operating as the “WD-40” of society (Putnam 2000:

23; see also Coleman 1986).

One concern emerging from the concepts popularity is that social capital will be

transformed into a “catch-all” concept (Field 2003). Many argue in fact that social

capital is becoming just that (Fine 2001; Huber 2009). However, simply because social

capital crosses disciplines, accounts for important aspects of social life, and is useful for

understanding a multitude of outcomes does not mean that it is or will become a “catch-

all” concept. Instead, I would suggest that the “fears” associated with social capital

becoming irrelevant and/or losing its meaning are misplaced. The real issue concerning

social capital that may underlie both its popularity and concerns over its becoming

irrelevant is whether social scientists really understand what it is (Farr 2004).

In certain areas of scholarship, researchers have exained what is known as the

“dark side” of social capital (Cloud and Granfield 2008; Demant and Jarvinen 2011;

Field 2003; Putnam 2000). For example, Cloud and Granfield (2008) propose in their

study that social capital should be conceptualized in terms of both a positive and negative

scale. In their study they examined at the importance of social capital to the recovery

from substance abuse. For their purposes, positive social capital would help a person to

overcome an addiction, whereas a negative store of social capital would work against

recovery. Although this “dark side” approach presents an interesting avenue to explore in

future research, it is beyond the scope of the current study and is only mentioned briefly

one more time in relation to Putnam’s (2000) discussion on bonding social capital.

5
Instead, the current research focuses on more common conceptualizations of the term and

its correlates.

Definitions and Context

Social capital is related to the idea of human and economic capital, but it is much

more difficult to “see” and thus harder to define and measure. However, regardless of the

theorist or discipline, it is widely acknowledged that social capital has to do with people,

interaction, networks, and resources (Alder and Kwon 2002; Bourdieu

1977,1980,1984,1986, 2002; Coleman 1988, 1990; Field 2003; Lin 1999; Putnam1993,

2000). In most cases, scholars have conceptualized social capital in terms of “resources.”

Resources, and one’s access to them, have been of paramount interest and importance

within sociology since the writings of Weber (1946; also see Corcoran 1995). As part of

a theory of resources, social capital has become critical for understanding how resources

are both accessed and utilized (Lin 2001).

Building on these ideas, social capital can be defined as the social resources that

exist in the relationships between individuals and groups wherein such resources can be

accessed and used to reach individual or collective goals (Bourdieu; Coleman 1988; Lin

1999; Putnam 1993, 2000). This interpretation of social capital incorporates examples

from finding a good hairdresser through word of mouth to being promoted because of a

pre-existing relationship, or finding a job because your friend knows someone. The key

to social capital thus lies in social ties or relationships.

Social capital is a rich concept focusing on social resources embedded in

relationships. Seemingly simple at first (Field 2003), social capital has emerged over

time as a complex, abstract construction including such terms as social skills, trust,

6
reciprocity, exchange, obligations, in-group/out-groups, and norms (Alder and Kwon

2002; Bourdieu 1980, 1986; Coleman 1988; DeGraaf and Flap 1988; Elster 2003;

Herreros 2004; Huber 2008; Knudsen et al. 2007; Lin 1999, 2001, 2004; Portes 1998;

Putnam 2000). For example, a person’s social skills lie with them, but those social skills

help them to engage in interactions which can lead to the creation, maintenance and use

of social capital. Are these social skills then also social capital? Knudsen et al. (2008)

provide further support for the argument that social capital is not as simple as it may

seem, and that its definition, understanding and meaning can vary depending on the

context. Drawing on Putnam’s (2000) conceptualization of social capital as either

bonding or bridging, Knudsen et al. (2008) report that the experience of social capital

varies by region of the country as well as by inclusive or exclusive group memberships.

Moreover, trust and trustworthiness could also be considered examples of social

resources in that they exist between people and help people to attain goals. For example,

someone who is traveling may ask a perfect stranger to watch their suitcases because they

need to use the restroom. Yet, the discussion of trust and whether it is social capital, or

whether it simply underlies it, or both, is not resolved (Field 2003). As these few

examples illustrate, a seemingly simple concept quickly becomes complex when applied

to the social world.

Further illustrating the complex nature of social capital, socio-demographic

characteristics important to status, health, mental health, and inequality (e.g. income,

education), have sometimes been included in studies using social capital not outcomes,

but as moderating or mediating variables (Knudsen et al. (2007); Nieminen et al. 2008;

Parks-Yancy et al. 2008). Stack (1974) found, for instance, that social resources were

7
utilized differently than previously thought within a poor African American community.

Respondents in her study shared resources whenever possible, sometimes at the expense

of their own immediate family, and in many cases for the betterment of the community.

Her work illustrated that respondents used social capital in creative ways to manage their

lack of economic capital and in the face of structural constraints (Field 2003; Stack

1974).

Social capital’s complexities can be seen through the lens of gender as well.

Traditionally women tend to have more ties to family and personal friends whereas men

tend to have more work related ties (Parks-Yancy et al. 2008). Because these bonds have

fundamental differences, they tend to produce different social resources. Thus both men

and women tend to suffer from a deficit of certain types of social capital. While race,

class and gender have been included in models with social capital2, there is relatively

little research exploring how these three dimensions of stratification might combine to

influence social capital itself.

Although the growing body of literature related to social capital has increased

social scientific appreciation for the concept and has succeeded in raising awareness of its

potential importance for understanding the reproduction of inequality, variation in the

conceptualization and measurement of social capital has also placed limits on its

theoretical and empirical value. One reason for this may lie in the fact that researchers

are drawing on conceptualizations of social capital stemming from at least three different

theoretical traditions. Thus, to fully understand the implications of conceptualizing and

2
Parks-Yancy et al.’s (2008) theoretical piece argues that race, class and gender matter to social capital and
specifically to reciprocity within exchange interactions.

8
operationalizing social capital within empirical research, one must first understand these

different traditions.

9
 CHAPTER II

THEORY

Social capital is portrayed as having important consequences for the quality of

people’s lives. But are we really “seeing” social capital? While it is safe to assume that

people have the potential to create, maintain and use social capital, the assumption of

many researchers (whether explicit or implied) is that social capital is social capital,

regardless of one’s position in the social structure (DeGraaf and Flap 1988; Coleman

1988, 1990; Friedkin 1980; Putnam 1993, 2000)3. However recent research suggests that

social capital is in fact influenced by such socio-demographic factors as region, socio-

economic status, class, race, gender, and age (Aguilera 2002; Knudsen et al. 2007;

Nieminen et al. 2008; Parks-Yancy et al. 2008). The findings of researchers parallel

those of studies examining the moderating or mediating influence of social capital on

such other outcomes as well-being, health, class, occupations, volunteering, high-risk

activism, and solidarity Campbell 2000; Gittell et al. 2000; Maloney et al. 2000; O’Neill

and Gidengil 2006; Norris and Inglehart (2006); Putnam 2000; Stack 1974; Sretzer

2000). Whether it was their intention or not, these researchers also found that social

capital did not operate similarly across demographic groups.

3
Bourdieu would be the one major social capital theorist that from the beginning considered social capital
according to one’s position. However, even Bourdieu generalized that social capital should in theory
operate in the same ways for all groups. His point was that some people had more of it than others
based on their position in social space (2002).

10
 As such, a more complete understanding of social capital requires an empirical

test of theoretically-grounded relationships that conceptualizes social capital as a multi-

dimensional concept that has the potential to be influenced by the characteristics of the

population under consideration. In conducting such a study, I hope to clarify social

capital theoretical and empirical knowledge about social capital, and to do so in the

context of allowing for differences across socio-demographic groups. First, however, the

following section details and differentiates the theoretical approaches taken by the three

most prominent theorists of social capital: Robert Putnam (1993, 2000), James Coleman

(1988, 1990), and Pierre Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984, 1986, 2002).4

Putnam’s Social Capital: Bonding and Bridging

Robert Putnam’s (1993; 2000) approach to social capital focuses on volunteering

and civic action as well as democracy and community. His treatment of social capital is

one reason so many scholars have latched onto social capital as a concept and some as a

theory in itself. Specifically, he argues that communities with higher social capital have

an easier time with volunteerism due to norms of reciprocity within the networks of those

who are active in the community. He generally defines social capital in regard to

characteristics of organizations, for instance “…trust, norms, and networks that can

improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated actions…” (Putnam 1993:

167).

4
Others, whose work has informed the discussion on social capital include, Granovetter 1973; Lin 1999,
2004; McPherson et al. 2006; Marsden and Hulbert 1988; Temkin and Rohe 1998. However, I have
chosen to limit my analysis to Coleman, Putnam and Bourdieu because researchers base their theoretical
and empirical measurements of social capital upon these three major theorists. These three
conceptualizations of social capital make up the foundation for most researchers focusing on and/or using
social capital.

11
 For Putnam (2000), social capital is located in the social tie between two actors or

is inherently found within a community network of relations (as noted below, this is also

the case for Coleman). Thus, social capital lies within one’s network and more

specifically, in the relationships therein. Putnam (1993) likens social capital to other

forms of capital in that social capital will grow with use and dissipate with disuse (he also

notes that trust, social networks and social norms operate similarly). Putnam (2000) sees

a decline in social capital overall, he notes that there are fewer organizational

memberships, loosening ties across the country, as well as a sense of lost community. In

his 2013 article, Putnam uses his own hometown in Ohio as a prime example of the

deleterious effects the loss social capital has on community. Specifically, he compares

the experience of his classmates to the lack of community today. His classmates noted

that growing up they were poor and did not realize it at the time, but Putnam elaborates

that what they lacked in monetary resources they made up with social ties and support.

For example, a family that could not afford a car was able to hitch rides from neighbors

to work and school. Thus, the lack of a car did not stop the father from making every one

of his son’s games. However, in that same town today one does not find those kind of

stories and community.

Consistent with the preceding, Putnam (1993) views social capital as a public

good and not privately held (also see Coleman 1988, 1990). For Putnam (1993), social

capital is formed as a by-product of some other social event. Putnam (1993, 2000) sees

trust as a key indicator of social capital, because of its link to the norm of reciprocity as

well as the broad and localized benefits that are derived from social or generalized trust.

The latter is defined “as a ‘standing decision’ to give most people- even those whom one

12
does not know from direct experience- the benefit of the doubt” (Putnam 2000:136). For

Putnam (2000:134), the trust that underlies reciprocity is essential to social capital. The

benefits that can come from a network, community or society built on a solid foundation

of trust are numerous and may include, more volunteerism, higher levels of giving, higher

incidents of voting, and participation in civic engagement(s) (see Putnam 2000:136-137

for more examples).

Putnam (2000) further delineates between “thin” and “thick” trust. “Thin” trust is

between acquaintances or strangers. This “thin” trust is directly tied to the social or

generalized trust that Putnam (2000) writes about as declining and imminently important

to community social capital. “Thick” trust in contrast is the trust that one builds with a

strong tie (i.e. family, close friend, life-time acquaintance). For example, a young

woman in Virginia divorced her husband. She decided to move back home and raise her

young daughter around family. She worked as a teacher and when she moved she needed

a new place to live. Her mother and step-father gave her the land she needed to build a

new house. Not only could she rely on her thick trust with family, but she was living

again in the small town she had grown up in which meant that she could find people she

knew and had built relationships with over time to help her build her home.

Conversely, a strange man on the street whose car had broken down approached a

young female student late one evening in the university parking deck. He asked for her

help and she explained that she could not take him to an undisclosed location to pick up

his car or get a tow as she was a woman alone and he was a stranger. However, she did

loan him the use of her cell phone to call a friend. While there was an absence of “thick”

trust, there was an element of “thin” trust in the example because she did help him find a

13
way home. According to Putnam (2000), however, “thin” trust is in decline both in urban

and rural areas. Illustrating some of the effects of this decline, Putnam points to the drop

in people who are willing to volunteer or pick up hitchhikers, that drivers on the road are

less civil, and people drive over the speed limit more often and at higher levels than in the

past.

Losing levels of “thin” trust in our society and in our communities is a great loss.

It is important because “thin” trust is one of the key foundations for social capital and as

Putnam (2000) points out,

[i]n short, people who trust others are all-round good citizens, and those more
engaged in community life are both more trusting and more trustworthy…[while]
the civically disengaged believe themselves to be surrounded by miscreants and
feel less constrained to be honest themselves (137).

The tie and network provide the structure necessary for social capital, but generalized

trust provides the foundation for beneficial norms to emerge and, most importantly for

social capital, the norm of reciprocity without which social capital would lose its

efficiency and robust quality.

There are four important functions of social capital for Putnam (2000). First,

social capital reduces the complexity of solving “collective problems.” Putnam (2000)

identifies networks and social norms as the mechanisms that allow for ease in solving

community issues. In other words, social norms and social interactions are the important

aspects of how social capital is created, stored, and used. Second, social capital, “greases

the wheels” of society. Here Putnam suggests that when people are trustworthy and

willing to trust others “social transactions are less costly” (Putnam 2000: 288).

Next, Putnam (2000) argues that social capital allows for people to achieve a

common consciousness, where we realize that our lives and consequences are linked.

14
Essentially what he is referring to is the feeling that we are all in the same proverbial

“boat”. Here, Putnam draws again on social ties that are characterized by trust and which

“develop or maintain character traits that are good for the rest of society” (2000: 288).

Thus he asserts that people who are “joiners” will learn to be more tolerant and

empathetic because they are willing to listen to other viewpoints, while an absence of ties

will mean that there is no one to stop someone from acting on “their worst impulses”

(Putnam 2000: 289). Of course, he does not argue that if you have fewer social ties you

will do something rotten, only that it is more likely.

Finally, Putnam (2000) links altruism and philanthropic endeavors to social

capital. He references John Dewey’s distinction between “doing with” and “doing for”

(p. 116) when talking about actions that are charitable and/or altruistic. According to

Dewey’s conceptualization, the people who actually stay and participate in person are

“doing with”. While those who (for whatever reason) cannot participate in person, but

instead give money (or things) to a charity or organization are “doing for”. Putnam

(2000) argues that “[s]ocial capital refers to networks of social connection – [and

connects social capital to] doing with” (116). Thus, participating with others toward a

common goal of helping others is social capital.

Putnam (2000) further develops the concept of social capital to include bonding

capital and bridging capital. One can think of the main difference between bonding and

bridging social capital in terms of the type of tie or relationship that exists between two

actors. The type of tie dictates the type of social capital. In what follows, I will describe

each form of capital in turn. I will then contrast the two in order to clearly illustrate that

while both are social capital, they are distinct concepts.

15
Bonding Social Capital

According to Putnam, bonding social capital refers to social resources that lie

within ones’ community and close network. Putnam writes, “[b]onding social capital is

good for undergirding specific reciprocity and mobilizing solidarity” (2000: 22).

Accordingly, bonding social capital is an exclusionary form of social capital that helps to

bind people together based on their similarities.5 Bonding social capital is characterized

by strong ties and close personal relationships. It references those in-groups that feed off

one another’s similarities and reject differences.

Another way to think of bonding social capital is social resources that lie with ties

to people who are “like” you. For Putnam (2000), bonding social capital is the

metaphorical equivalent to social “superglue.” Thus, “thick” trust underlies bonding

social capital. An example of bonding social capital would be when someone in your

family dies and you need help and support. If you are a member of a church or place of

worship then you expect that the minister and congregants will provide you with this

social capital. In sum, bonding social capital is based on relationships or memberships

that are exclusive (where some restrictions apply to membership, for example, based on

race, gender, class, or kinship (Knudsen et al. 2007; Putnam 2000)). Therefore, bonding

social capital includes the ties between family members and close friends. It can also

refer to memberships such as fraternities or sororities, ethnic group ties, and religious

group membership.

It has been said that bonding social capital can encapsulate the darker “side” of

social capital, also noted by Weber (1945) as social closure, where bonding social capital

5
This is reminiscent of Durkheim’s (1997) ideas related to solidarity and specifically mechanical solidarity, one aspect
being collective consciousness.

16
can have deleterious effects on social inequality, especially where issues already exist

“bonding practices can reinforce the practices of nepotism, ethnic hatred, and

sectarianism, as well as sexism” (Norris and Inglehart 2006: 77). As noted earlier, this

facet of bonding social capital, while important, is not considered in the current study.

Bridging Social Capital

Bridging social capital refers to ties with resources that extend outside of one’s

immediate community or network, “[b]ridging networks...are better for linkage to

external assets and for information diffusion” (Putnam 2000: 22). Furthermore, ties that

can be construed as bridging social capital tend to “generate broader identities and

reciprocity, whereas bonding social capital bolsters our narrower selves” (Putnam 2000:

23). Putnam equates bridging social capital to the social lubricant or “WD-40” of

relationships. In fact, most of what Putnam refers to as “thin” trust underlies bridging

social capital.

At the empirical level, bridging social capital is involved in networking. For

Putnam (2000), it is this form of capital that underlies people’s decision to join the

Chamber of Commerce and attend conferences or other events that promote social

networking opportunities that reach beyond their immediate local ties. Drawing on these

examples, groups that are considered inclusive (where membership is not restrictive) are

linked to bridging social capital (Putnam 2000; Knudsen et al 2007). Underlying these

assumptions is Granovetter’s (1973) work on the power of weak ties in a network.

Granovetter (1973) found that weak ties, also known as acquaintances, should not be

17
dismissed. These ties tended to help people find jobs and linked them to the broader

network and thus to potentially important outside resources.

Whereas bonding social capital helps to create loyalty to the group and strengthen

in-group membership a by-product of which can be the creation of out-group dislike or

distrust, bridging social capital lies in the diversity of relationships and promotes the

appreciation of differences. The preceding appears to imply an inverse relationship

between the two types of social capital, where having more bonding social capital means

one will have less bridging social capital. However, within his discussion on bridging

versus bonding social capital, Putnam (2000) emphasizes that neither is exclusive of the

other. Although he does not go into great detail about the process through which this

happens, Putnam (2000) notes that groups (his unit of analysis is at the community level)

have the ability to create bonding and bridging social capital simultaneously.

Finally, Putnam (2000) argues that people tend to have more bonding social

capital than bridging. However, bridging social capital is important to branching out and

increasing the breadth of one’s social resources. He goes on to note that bonding social

capital is easier to build and maintain over bridging social capital, but that both are

important, one to the well-being of one’s emotional and immediate social network, and

the latter to one’s opportunities for advancement, diversity, and open-mindedness.

Coleman’s Social Capital

The most common definition of social capital comes from James Coleman who

defines it as existing inside the “structure of relations between actors and among actors”

(1988:S98). He further identifies social capital as relations that bring about social action

18
(see Coleman 1988, 1990). In his effort to integrate an agentive, rational actor with

structuralist constraint, Coleman was led to the concept of social capital. Social capital

was thus his answer to solving the sociological question of agency, structure, or both? In

social capital both agency and structure are of vital importance and neither can

completely be ignored. For Coleman (1988, 1990) social capital was able to bridge the

gap between agency and structure.

Coleman’s (1988) conceptualization of social capital centers on understanding

the creation of social capital as well as what it means to have social capital. For him,

social capital resides in the ties between people, (i.e. in their networks) and is not

privately held (Coleman 1988, 1990). Coleman (1988) considers having relationships

with others as a social form of “capital” because these ties contain resources. He also

views social capital as a resource in and of itself (Coleman 1988).

For Coleman (1988, 1990), the family is the natural birthplace for social capital.

As Field (2003:26) notes, Coleman refers to the family as “‘primordial’ social

organization which is distinguished by the fact that its origins lay ‘in the relationships

established by childbirth.’” Numerous studies point to the importance of the family,

specifically the benefits that parents share with their children, for social capital (Abbas,

2002; Francis and Archer, 2005; Goulbourne and Solomos, 2003; Thapar and Sanghera

2010; Zhou and Bankston, 1994).

As a result, Coleman views the decline of the family as a major blow to the

creation and maintenance of social capital within society. For it is through our

experiences in our families that we are able to create, sustain and use social capital.

Without the familial experience there is no foundation, no real understanding of social

19
capital (Coleman 1988; Field 2003). It follows then that the loss of or lessening of the

family unit means that the fundamental understanding and operation of social capital will

either change or disappear completely.

Coleman illustrates the importance of family-based social capital in his 1988

article focusing on the creation of human capital through social capital. Here, he clearly

links the creation of human capital in children through the social capital that they hold

with their family members, specifically parents. Children’s relationships to their parents

are an important aspect of this process. However, it is how their parents’ social capital

operates outside the home to connect their children with important actors in the education

system, as well as in regard to the creation of social closure within the broader

community that are integral to the children’s educational success and, ultimately, to the

children’s human capital (Coleman 1988).

Coleman (1988) defines social capital by its function, allowing those using his

theory to apply the concept quite broadly. By function, Coleman (1990) is referring to

the fact that social capital “is not a single entity” (302). As described below, social

capital can take different forms. In each case, social capital is seen as existing within

social structures and as enabling actors within social structures to take action (Coleman

1990). While social capital deals with social relations, the unit of analysis is not limited

to individual actors, but can include corporate or group actors as well. When talking

about corporate actors Coleman (1990) treats them similarly to individuals in that they

are also seen as rational and having an internal structure. With these considerations in

mind, Coleman (1988) identifies three forms of social capital: expectation/obligation,

“information channels”, and social norms.

20
Expectations/Obligations

The first form of social capital has three parts: obligation, expectation and trust.

Coleman (1988, 1990) writes of trust in a social structure or society (depending on the

nature of the capital being studied) and emphasizes its importance to the building of

social capital. For Coleman, trust is an essential building block of social capital.

The following example illustrates how these three facets combine to operate as social

capital. An expectation is established when A provides a service (action) for B and trusts

that B will reciprocate the favor. Consequently, A expects something in the future from

B and B is now obligated to A. The relationship now has a new dimension wherein both

agree that B owes a favor to A in return for the one performed by B. According to

Coleman (1988), for this form of capital to work it depends on two things: (1) actor A

needs to place trust wisely (that B will return the favor), and (2) the extensiveness of

outstanding obligations that A holds.

Although researchers debate whether trust is, in and of itself social capital,

Coleman (1988, 1990) assumes that trust is integral to social capital and includes it in his

analysis of not only expectations/obligations, but also in his discussion of social norms.

Social Norms

Coleman (1988) also considers social norms as providing social capital. The

example Coleman gives is of norms in the communities of Jerusalem. There, they have

norms that allow children to walk safely and, in so doing, to reflect a diffuse and valuable

form of social capital. In Jerusalem, for example, when a child is wandering alone it is

the responsibility of every adult surrounding that child to care for him or her. Elster

21
(2003) provides a different example of norms as social capital: When there is a social

norm against littering, a person who has a piece of trash may have to take the extra step

and time to find and deposit his or her trash in a designated receptacle and, as a result,

may grumble or feel put out. However, when followed, this particular social norm

provides a clean environment for all. While not explicitly stated, the example of the

family in Jerusalem who can let their child go into the city unattended without fear of the

child being hurt or injured versus a major United States city where children are feared for

if not supervised by a known and trusted adult illustrates Coleman’s assertion that trust

underlies social norms (1988).

We can however, think of trusting as a norm in and of itself. Even with the

advent of new technologies people are finding that certain values and “shared

understandings” remain stable in our society (Halpern 2005).

Economic growth and technology have strongly underwritten this

undermining of tradition and obligation, radically shifting the relative
costs and benefits of social interaction away from favouring a reliance on
immediate neighbours and in favour of distant, but chosen others. The
bonds of ideology, obedience to authority, and reliance on our neighbours
through economic necessity have been loosened, freeing people to pick
and mix their own more individualistic values and lifestyles. Yet it would
be quite wrong to characterize the resultant values and societies as simply
more selfish or just atomized. The individualism of many modern values
is underwritten by a solid and widespread commitment to a core of shared
understandings…[i.e.] ‘don’t do unto other that which you wouldn’t want
done to yourself’. Hence, while across the world people are becoming
much more relaxed about what consenting adults do to each other…they
remain steadfastly against dangerous or selfish behavior that puts others at
risk (Halpern 2005: 240).

Demant and Jarvinen (2011) conceptualize social capital as comprised by social norms

and resources. Their study analyzes the interaction between the social capital embedded

in peer groups and alcohol use. They cite work showing the importance of the peer group

22
to the individual influences how much a person will adhere to a norm promoting the

consumption of alcohol. Demant and Jarvinen (2011) find that norms, or “‘the rules by

which people coordinate their actions along with systems of sanctions and incentives that

ensure consistence in those actions’”, are important for understanding the use and

sometimes abuse of alcohol when respondents are in the company of peer groups (93).

Demant and Jarvinen (2011) use Coleman’s conceptualization of social capital to inform

their research by “defin[ing] social capital as a ‘resource for action’ related to certain

collectively stipulated norms” (92). However, they do not explicitly acknowledge the

other forms of social capital that Coleman highlights (e.g., information channels and

expectations/obligations).

Portes (1998) also highlights the importance of social norms to Coleman’s

conceptualization of social capital. With reference to expectations/obligations, he cites

the norm of reciprocity6 as the operating force that allows for the creation of social

capital. It is through the enforcement of social norms that people can reap benefits that

otherwise would not be available to them. One can think of the expectation/obligation

form of social capital as a manifestation of a specific social norm, the norm of

reciprocity, versus the generalized notion of social norms being a form of social capital.

6
According to Malinowski (1932), reciprocity is where there is a “mutual dependence…realized in the
equivalent arrangement of reciprocal services…” (p. 55). Reciprocity refers to structures of duties,
obligations and expectations within relationships (Gouldner 1960). Putnam (2000) writes that
“[n]etworks involve…mutual obligations…[and they] foster sturdy norms of reciprocity: I’ll do this for
you now, in the expectation that you (or perhaps someone else) will return the favor” (p. 20). Putnam
(2000) further specifies a “norm of generalized reciprocity: I’ll do this for you without expecting
anything specific back from you…[with the] expectation that someone else will do something for me
down the road.” (p. 20-21).

23
 Finally, Coleman (1988) points to the norm of altruism7 within communities –

that is, the expectation that actors will in certain situations act morally without

consideration for themselves and motivated by internal social controls to illustrate the

importance of this form of social capital. According to Schneider (2000), “ [i]t is the

interrelationship of individuals, held together through social ties, that Coleman saw as the

conduit through which norms could be transmitted and sanctions imposed” (376). Based

on Demant and Jarvinen (2011), as well as Coleman (1988), social norms in this study,

refers to the shared expectations of behavior for any given social circumstance.

Information Channels

Social capital also lies in what Coleman (1988) calls “information channels”.

These refer to the relations that help people find and collect information. For example, a

graduate student married to an expert in the field of political science goes to him for

information and analysis for both domestic and international politics. Their connection

reduces the need for the graduate student (working very hard on her dissertation) to

search out all of the information on her own.

In a different example, a family in Boston vacations on a local coastal island with

friends. They did not know about it as a vacation destination until a friend of theirs met

someone whose family owns a home on the island. In this instance, that social tie

became an information channel and led to a family identifying this island as a vacation

destination (action). While there is no real obligation, these relations can be beneficial in

7
According to Peterson (1980), altruism is considered a “prosocial behavior occurring without external
reward…and internal rather than external control has been suggested in the form of self-congratulations
and increases in self-esteem” (p. 830).

24
that they provide information that could later influence, or lead to, action (Coleman

1988).

Coleman’s conceptualization of social capital is by far the one most commonly

used among researchers (Field 2003). More specifically, many refer to his description of

social capital as residing in the ties between people, or in their networks, and in the form

of social capital characterized by expectations/obligation. Coleman’s conceptualization

of social capital focuses more on the means used to create social capital and what social

capital is more broadly, rather than being limited to the content of the relation. He

centers his conceptualization of social capital on the structure and function of the creation

of social capital while simultaneously providing a clear definition of social capital.

According to Coleman (1988, 1990), social capital’s creation comes about through

actors’ actions. Once created, social capital can then take on the different forms outlined

above (i.e., expectations/obligations, information channels, and norms).

It is easy to get lost in the different forms of social capital, and to lose the idea

that Coleman (1988S) conceives of social structures as social capital. As he notes, ”[t]he

function identified by the concept of ‘social capital; is the value of these aspects of social

structure to actors as resources that they can use to achieve their interests” (S101). Social

capital can take on different forms that are characterized by two parts: First, that social

capital exists within social structures and second, that social capital enables actors within

social structures to take action (Coleman 1990). Writers very often will add the famous

two parts of social capital to the discourse, but then focus on the tie and what lies within

as the unit of analysis. When studying Coleman’s examples and use of social capital it is

clear that simply being a member of a social structure or organization is considered social

25
capital. The actor’s self is not important. In fact, this is why social capital does not lie

with the actor. It is also why it is important that Coleman assumes a rational actor,

because then each actor will act according to the dictates of structural position(s). Taken

to its conclusion, Coleman’s theory of social action leads one to say that without social

structures there can be no action (Coleman 1988S). In fact, Coleman (1988) argues that

social capital is a public good and not privately held, “[t]he public goods quality of most

social capital means that it is in a fundamentally different position with respect to

purposive action than are most other forms of capital” (S118) (see also p.116S).

In sum, Coleman states, “[t]he preceding pages… [focused on the forms of social

capital were] directed toward defining and illustrating social capital in general…[b]oth

social capital in the family and social capital in the community play roles in the creation

of human capital in the rising generation” (1988: S109). Coleman (1988) cited social

capital as one piece of a “family’s background,” along with human capital and financial

capital. For the purposes of the current dissertation project, social capital was the sole

focus, while what Coleman terms human capital (parents education) and financial capital

(income) were linked to the concept of social class. It is important to note that Coleman

includes social class as a part of his larger model, adding to the argument that one should

consider social context when studying social capital (Coleman 1988).

While the various definitions and writings on social capital have many similarities

(see Bourdieu 1986; Lin 1999; Putnam 2000), the distinguishing qualities of Coleman’s

work are: First, that he brings agency into a field largely dominated by structure; second,

he defines social capital using a structural functionalist’s perspective; and third, that he

conceptualizes social capital in terms of its creation and its role in creating other forms

26
of capital (e.g., human capital in the form of education) (Coleman 1988). As was shown

above, Coleman’s work has and continues to have a large impact on the concept of social

capital and its uses (Graaf and Flap 1988; Alder and Kwon 2002; Putnam 2000).

Both Coleman and Putnam look at resources, trust, and the norm of reciprocity as

integral parts of social capital, but their definitions are distinct in that Coleman’s is less

specified and Putnam takes more time to clearly delineate social capital based on the type

of social tie in terms of content and structure. While Coleman’s strength lies in

understanding the creation of social capital, defining it through its function(s), Putnam’s

strength lies in his conceptualization of social capital formed and shaped by the social

relationship. Putnam distinguishes himself within the social capital literature through his

delineation of social capital in the formation of bonding and bridging respectively. While

Coleman’s three-pronged approach may seem more varied, it is in fact not. Information

channels and expectation/obligation relationships are not that dissimilar and may in fact

happen within the same relationship. Both also focus not on the structure of the network,

but on the structure and function of the tie itself.

Putnam’s approach is different than Coleman’s on many fronts. While function is

not ignored, the focus is on the resources in the network, and how the relationships

perform differently. Bonding, for example, operates from exclusive membership ties and

according to the norm of reciprocity, but with the caveat that it is related to specific, well-

defined reciprocities. In Putnam’s efforts to define these two aspects of social capital, he

looks at it not just from a functional viewpoint, but with a clear idea of what social capital

does for a group and the larger society (and by extension individuals) in regard to

promoting solidarity. Coleman’s conceptualization of expectation/obligation is much

27
more vague and malleable in terms of goals. Bonding and bridging leaves no doubt as to

the role each concept is intended to play. Coleman’s social capital includes the creation

and the action that is involved in producing social capital, whereas Putnam assumes that

an actor (group or individual) is already plugged into a network and has at least some

form of bonding social capital. This works well given that Putnam’s research targets the

mobilization of social capital for issues related to community and solidarity.

Both Putnam and Coleman look at social capital in terms of resources, its

structure, and to some extent, each attempts to assert a typology of social capital. Both

theorists are searching for the framework that will allow them to “see” social capital in all

its various permutations. The most critical difference between the two is that Coleman

focuses more on function and is less specific, whereas Putnam focuses on the content as

well as the structure of the relationship and the relationship’s place in the larger network.

Bourdieu’s Social Capital

Bourdieu’s interests lay in understanding the reproduction of inequality. His

focus was on the social hierarchy embedded in society and understanding how people use

different tactics to be successful in the hierarchy based on the differential distribution of

four specific capitals. Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984, 2002) conceptualizes social capital

along with three other forms of capital: economic8, cultural9 and symbolic10. The

8
Economic capital refers to the ability of an individual to exchange resources for economic or monetary gain. All
forms of capital are ultimately reducible to this form. Still, all forms of capital work together to reproduce inequality in
society (Field 2003; Bourdieu 1986: p. 252).

9
Cultural capital has three parts, objectified, institutionalized and habitus. Objectified cultural capital refers to material
objects, such as cars, houses, etc. While institutionalized cultural capital are the credentials that one holds, such as
president of the university or professor of sociology. Habitus is a system of internalized dispositions, what Bourdieu
calls tastes or style, through which one perceives and deals with their social world, what is good or bad, right or wrong,
in fashion or not, etc. (Bourdieu 1984, 1980).

28
operation of these forms of capital is framed in the context social space11, fields (see

below) and practice. It is through social practices that one can mobilize social capital or

transform it into another form of capital.

While all forms of capital are important, this study remains focused solely on

social capital. Consistent with Bourdieuian theory, the concept of fields will be used to

situate social capital in that it is mobilized within particular social contexts or fields.

Bourdieu’s treatment of social capital was not as thorough as it could have been, and the

concept itself is certainly not as fully conceptualized as cultural capital. Therefore, the

current study may be of use to scholars interested in adding more complexity and

understanding of social capital to the already well-established literature on cultural

capital. Although Bourdieu theorized that the different forms of capital were linked to

one another, the purpose of the current project is to delve deeper into the

conceptualization of social capital and not to serve as a general test Bourdieu’s theory of

inequality.

The reason that Bourdieu is included in the current study is that his approach to

social capital brings with it a refined theory of inequality and a clear understanding of the

ways in which social context may influence how social capital influences the

10
Symbolic capital refers to the honor or prestige that one has and is measured by how much social, economic and
cultural capital one holds. For example, if one has high economic capital, high social capital and high cultural capital,
then one can be said to have high symbolic capital (Bourdieu 1984, 1986, 2002).
11
Social space is a methodological tool whereby one can analyze the stratification of society. Depending on where a
position is in relation to another will predict how they relate to one another. The way in which they interact or relate
depends on their ability to exchange capital. The important benefit of social space is the ability to measure the distance
between positions. This distance informs us whether and how much positions will interrelate (Bourdieu 1984, 2002).
However, social space is composed of cultural and economic capital. If anything, social space can frame social capital,
not the other way around. Moreover, there is no way to fully measure the rich and multilevel concept of cultural capital
with the proposed dataset. Therefore, social space is not included. Although, the current study has the potential to add
to the larger idea of social space by showing that socio-demographic variables (two of which were not directly
addressed in Bourdieu’s theory- race and gender) do impact social capital. While habitus encompasses race, gender
and class in terms of experiences that are similar or different depending on one’s position in social space, race and
gender are not formally included in Bourdieu’s theory of inequality.

29
reproduction of inequality. Further, one of the weaknesses within Bourdieu’s theory of

inequality is his conceptualization of social capital. Scholars such as Field (2003) and

Portes (1998) raise questions about the fact that so much of the published work on social

capital does not include a consideration of Bourdieu. This may be due to his brevity on

the subject. While Bourdieu (1986) writes that social capital is an important form of

capital and should be included, he provides little more in the way of detailed

conceptualization.

Bourdieu (1984) views social capital in the context of the position that one holds

in a field within social space. Fields are patterns of relations between positions (e.g.,

political field, religious, economic, educational, health, family, etc.). Whether or not a

form of capital can be exchanged largely depends on the field. A field provides a context

to interactions and thus becomes a part of its meaning. Thus, fields play an important

role in the market place of relations (Bourdieu 1986). Moreover, Bourdieu (1980) argues

that social capital is people’s key to obtaining varying degrees of economic and cultural

capitals. It is the ability to mobilize the pre-existing resources in relationships with

friends, acquaintances, school and business contacts that enables actors to transform

social capital into a resource that will lead to achieving personal and social goals

(Bourdieu 1980).

In a general sense, capital for Bourdieu (1986) refers to the possessions, qualities

and attributes of a person or position that are exchangeable within a field. Social capital

refers to the relations between positions that are meaningful (Bourdieu 1986). In his later

writings, Bourdieu (with Wacquant) refined his definition of social capital:

30
 [s]ocial capital is the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an
individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu
and Wacquant 1992: 119).

Bourdieu’s theory has roots in a Marxist view of economic capital and labor as

well as Weberian leanings with regard to power. The former can be seen in Bourdieu’s

belief that “economic capital is at the root of all other types of capital” (Bourdieu 1986:

252). Accordingly, it was through people’s labor that social capital (and all capital) was

accumulated (Field 2003). However, focusing solely on economic capital was not

enough, like Weber he was concerned with more than that. Bourdieu (1986) was

particularly interested in how the combination of the four forms of capital helped to

create and perpetuate inequality in our society. Therefore, it is through an understanding

of the different capitals that we can see how inequality happens and continues (Bourdieu

1986).

Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984, 2002) delved deeply into the conceptualizations of

cultural capital, economic capital and symbolic capital. While he did use and talk about

the idea of social capita, only one piece of his writing focuses on it specifically; (see

Bourdieu 1986). Because of this, the treatment and conceptualization of social capital is

less thorough and sophisticated than with other forms. Social capital was more of an

offshoot from cultural capital, a tertiary piece of his puzzle (Field 2003). Cultural capital,

particularly habitus, and economic capital played much bigger roles than social capital in

Bourdieu’s (1980, 1984) larger theoretical framework (Field 2003). However, where

Bourdieu was ahead of his time was in terms of treating social capital as a concept that is

influenced by context (both social capital itself (form) and its individual owner

(content)).

31
 In Bourdieu’s (1984, 1986, 2002) theory of inequality, which he sees being

reproduced through the educational system, he implicitly acknowledges that there is an

unequal distribution of social capital stemming from the disproportionate distribution of

resources available to obtaining it. The value of social capital is thus somewhat

dependent upon the actors with whom it is associated. If, for example, someone has a

high social status, a lot of money, and higher education from a highly ranked institution,

(e.g., Harvard University) then that person has many resources of value at their disposal.

Contrast that life situation with that of someone who has no higher education, lives pay-

check to pay-check, and thus has a lower social status. While the latter actor may have

many social ties, and even some social capital, it is qualitatively different from that of the

former actor whose social resources, according to societal standards, have more value.

The basic idea here is that pre-existing conditions affect the quality of one’s social capital

which, in turn, leads to a lower position in the social hierarchy (Bourdieu 1986).

Comparison and Contrast: Coleman, Putnam, and Bourdieu

Both Coleman (1988) and Bourdieu (1980, 1986, 2002) view the context or the

structure of relationships as important. As Coleman puts it, certain forms of social capital

are not useful and can indeed be harmful depending on the circumstance. The network of

relationships and how these operate is explicated in Coleman’s theory of social action

(1990). The ways in which individuals within a network of relations can have power

over another is based on social closure.12 Overall, when isolating the concept of social

12
The inequality in positions is only exacerbated by what Weber (1978) called “social closure.” Social
closure refers to the means undertaken by those in higher, more prestigious positions to insulate their
positions. Specifically, it refers to the “social groups formed around positions in the technical division of
labor [that] create social and legal barriers that restrict ‘access to resources and opportunities to a limited

32
capital, it is clear that both Putnam (2000) and Coleman (1988) are more explicit

conceptually than Bourdieu (1988). Coleman places the actor within a structure of

networks and institutions that inform actors’ relations and thus their social capital while

Putnam clearly outlines two forms of social capital (i.e. bonding and bridging) that are

based on the content of the relation itself. In fact, Putnam’s clear outline of social capital

at a more community or meso-level of analysis is a nice compliment to Coleman’s more

micro actor. Finally, both Coleman and Putnam’s more detailed theoretical descriptions

of social capital can be operationalized more easily than Bourdieu’s. These similarities

and differences are illustrated in how each approach to social capital is operationalized

within each model shown in chapter 4.

Bourdieu’s theory of inequality takes into account much more of the social world

than either Coleman’s or Putnam’s. As Silva and Edwards (2007:3) notes, one of the key

distinctions may be in terms of power:

Economic capital does not work like cultural capital or social capital. We
accumulate and invest in all forms of capital, yet the effects of accumulation and
investment are not the same throughout. In addition, they must be thought of not
simply in terms of accumulation or investment processes because power and
control are conferred and legitimised through particular possessions of capital
(Silva and Edwards 2007: 3).

Power is linked to the position an actor occupies in the social space. It is an important

difference to note because with the inclusion of such concepts as social space, field,

capital, and the fungibility of capitals from one to another, Bourdieu simultaneously

circle of eligibles’” (Weeden 2002: p. 57). There are four different mechanisms that are used to create
social closure. First, the labor supply for an occupation is limited (this can be done by making it difficult to
obtain the credentials necessary e.g. becoming a college professor). Second, working to increase the
demand for the services that an occupation provides. Third, legitimizing that a particular occupation is the
only one that can truly provide that service. And finally, communicating to consumers that the services are
of a certain quality (Weeden 2002).

33
acknowledges the import of social networks and, at the same time, that how these

networks come to affect actors are not equal because of differential access to other forms

of capital. So, simply having a network or belonging to an organization does not mean

that each actor shares the same choices, power, or resources as another (Bourdieu; Silva

and Edwards 2007).

In sum, social capital plays an important part in the “game” of attainment. It is

the “invisible force” that influences one’s occupational outcomes (Lin 2004). Social

capital, its possibilities, drawbacks and influences, are of critical importance for

understanding how one can not only “climb” the social strata, but also combat the

deleterious effects of inequality tied to poverty, race, and gender. However, the question

that has not yet been explored with regard to these three theoretical approaches to social

capital is how they may vary once potential differences across demographic groups are

taken into account.

Social Capital’s Socio-Demographic Application

The term social capital is found throughout the community and network

literatures (e.g. Coleman 1988; and Putnam 2000) as well as within the work of social

inequality theorists interested in social class (Bourdieu 1980; Lin 2001). More recently

researchers have called for contextual variables to be considered when looking at social

capital (Aguilera 2002; Briggs 1998; Campbell 2000; Gittell et al 2000; Goulbourne and

Solomos 2003; Norris and Inglehart 2006). If so, then race and gender (Campbell 2000;

Maloney et al. 2000) should be considered as well as class. As Parks-Yancy et al.

(2008:240) observe:

34
 Certainly, studies have found that gender, class or race do often define a group’s
status, access to social capital resources, and thus, the extent of interactions and
resource exchanges...

In what follows I will show how class, race, and gender are important components for

advancing our understanding of social capital both conceptually and empirically.

Class Differences and Social Capital

Researchers have shown that social capital is important to occupational success

and mobility (Burt 1992; Gabbay and Zuckerman 1998), to finding a job (Granovetter

1973, 1995; Lin and Dumin 1996), and within the workplace social capital has also been

associated with decreased turn-over (Krackhardt and Hanson 1993). Further, researchers

(Blau 1994; Burt 1976; Friedkin 1980, 1981, 1982; Granovetter 1973, 1995; Prell and

Skvoretz 2008, etc.) have discussed the importance of resources within ties, between

nodes, and the structural importance of a network, including the distance between nodes.

Much of this discussion is enmeshed in studies on bridges in networks, weak ties, and

gaining status either through work, birth, and friendships, or obtaining a higher status by

aligning oneself with someone who already has a higher status in the community.

Within the class literature, two of the main areas that use social capital are studies

focused on occupations/occupational prestige and social mobility (De Graaf and Flap

1988; Lin 2004; Marsden and Hulbert 1988). One other major area in which both class

and social capital are used concurrently is the educational literature (Coleman 1988).

Regardless of the area, scholars agree that social capital has a part to play in the social

resources available to people who are stratified by class.

35
 Studies have shown that social capital positively influences occupational prestige,

although not always income (De Graaf and Flap 1988; Lin 2004; Marsden and Hulbert

1988). For example, De Graaf and Flap (1988) point to the importance of one’s social

resources in finding a job in the Netherlands, West Germany, and the United States. In

this study, the authors define social capital as “[s]omeone’s resources [which] are the

result of the number of people who want to help him/her, the resources that he/she can

mobilize in this indirect way, and the extent to which others are prepared to give support”

(De Graaf and Flap 1988: 453). Of particular interest is that the occupational prestige of

the person who serves as the social resource impacts the prestige of the position one

finds. This finding is more pronounced in the U.S. than in the Netherlands. However, the

impact of the occupational prestige of the social contact on income was shown to be non-

significant for U.S. workers (De Graaf and Flap 1988).

Marsden and Hulbert (1988) also report that the occupational prestige of a contact

is associated with the prestige of the respondents. Furthermore, both the person’s

previous educational attainment and occupational prestige impact the kind of contacts

that he/she will have. This suggests that mobility through social contacts, or social

capital may be difficult on a larger scale (e.g. going from a lower occupational

prestigious position to a position with very high occupational prestige).

Along the same lines as Coleman (1988), Granovetter (1973) looks at social

capital through the ties that one has with others and specifically he looks at the

differences in tie strength. His major finding is that weak ties, those characterized by less

time and energy (what Putnam would refer to as bridging social capital), can lead to

finding a job. The ability of acquaintances, or weak ties, to help one find a job tends to

36
be simply through the interaction and exchange of information. The reason that

Granovetter (1973) gives for this finding is that weak ties can lead to broader networks.

However, Granovetter (1973) does not address whether weak ties will lead to higher

occupational prestige or status. McPherson et al. (2006) find in their study that these ties

are actually shrinking. This could have interesting and possibly negative consequences

on people’s ability to not only find jobs, but jobs that have higher occupational prestige.

The focus of most studies looking at class inequalities and social capital surrounds

issues of social mobility (e.g. education, status, and/or income). Variations exist both in

the quality and quantity of social capital that falls along class lines (Parks-Yancy et al.

2008). However, few acknowledge that these differences (in quantity or quality, form

and content as framed by the context of class) may correspond to differences in

experience or meaning and, as a result, such differences are not currently accounted for in

the most prominent measures of social capital.

The potential utility of such distinctions is illustrated by Parks-Yancy et al. (2008)

who argue that there are fewer exchanges between higher and lower classes because

those within higher social classes tend to be more exclusionary (protecting their status in

society) and to hoard their resources. By contrast, those in the lower social classes have

less to offer in terms of social resources. This affects the expectations/obligations

(Coleman 1988) relationship and the potential investment of social capital even if a tie

does exist. As Willis (1977) observed, people in a lower social class have less social

capital and their social capital is not as good in terms of the quality of resource that they

can offer. In sum, to obtain a complete picture of social capital, measures of social class

as an indicator of resources and position in the social structure must be included.

37
Racial Differences and Social Capital

Even considering other factors, in comparison to whites, African Americans have

less social capital and gain fewer rewards from the social capital that they possess

(Castilla 2008; Ibarra 1993, 1995; Petersen et al. 2000). Putnam (2003) also reports

finding lower levels of social capital and economic resources in communities with a

higher level of ethnic diversity (also cited in Silva and Edward, 2007).

Without using the term social capital explicitly, Stack’s (1974) work on kin and

community speaks to this topic, particularly with respect to bridging and bonding social

capital. As Stack (1974:125) notes:

The model of a cooperative life style built upon exchange and reciprocity as
described in the present study represents one dimension of the multivalued
cultural system, the value-mosaic of the poor…black urban poor, assuming a
cooperative life style, are simultaneously locked into an intimate, ongoing bond
with white culture and white values.

To clarify, in her research Stack (1974) finds that the relationships minorities in

the inner city have with one another are characterized by a social norm of sharing

resources (social, economic, and so on). The norm of sharing resources is important to

the survival of the individuals in the community and to their children’s well-being.

However, there can be negative consequences with regard to this norm. In fact, those

couples or individuals who were able to “get out” of the inner-city tended to remove

themselves from this kinship network.

One example Stack (1974) provides is of a married couple who came into a bit of

money (enough to possibly buy a house or make a good investment for their retirement).

However, within no time at all, this information had been disseminated throughout the

community and neighbors were coming to access bonding social capital in the form of

38
help with rent, shoes for their children, food, and so on. Within a couple of months, the

entire inheritance was gone. Again, this highlights the importance of looking at context

in the form of structural location (class and race) as well as at the social norms within

communities that help to shape the type of social capital that is formed within networks.

It also supports the assertion that social capital is different depending on such socio-

demographic characteristics as race.

Smith (2005) reports similar findings to Stack (1974) when looking at the effect

of weak and strong ties on social mobility among the African American working poor.

Whereas most research shows that weak ties (Granovetter 1973, 1995) are more useful

than strong ties for finding better jobs, Smith (2005) finds that neither strong nor weak

ties aid working poor African Americans in “climbing” the social ladder. Using Putnam’s

(2000) bonding and bridging terminology, neither bonding nor bridging social capital is

useful.

In contrast, Roschelle’s (1997) examination of the relationships between gender,

class, race and kin networks, does not find support for what Stack (1974) found in her

study, that minorities draw on their networks for support to offset poverty-related effects.

These findings are particularly relevant to the current discussion of social capital in that

they raise questions about the assumption that simply being in a social network means

that you have access to social capital. Further, it is clear in Roschelle’s (1997) study that

age, race, gender, and class all play a part in network participation and social capital. It

seems then that race does affect social capital and new insights might be gained were this

to be tested directly.

39
 In his work on social capital and labor participation, Aguilera (2002) tested for

different aspects of network variation, including friendship networks, structure, quality

and diversity. Because he utilized the 2000 SCCBS he was also able to examine social

capital in regard to racial and gender differences. He found that friendship networks

were generally positive forces for jobs and workforce participation. Aguilera (2002) also

reported both racial and gender differences in social capital. For race, he found that

blacks with friends who are leaders are nearly “four times more likely to be employed as

compared to those without leader friends” (Aguilera 2002: 869). Moreover, blacks with

more than six friends worked 17 percent more hours than those with fewer friends.

Aguilera also tested for the impact of social capital by race and found that for blacks who

experience discrimination in the labor market there was a “higher return” in the number

of hours worked and having social capital via ‘leader friends’ when compared to whites.

Gender Differences and Social Capital

Gender also impacts social capital with regard to the type of social capital and the

amount (Parks-Yancy et al. 2008). Research shows that men generally have more access

to social capital than women and also experience more for their social capital “buck” than

women (Campbell et al. 1988; DiTomaso et al. 2007; Lin 2001). For example, Wellman

and Frank (2001) state that women as opposed to men are more likely to participate in

exchanges of social support13. Moreover, if more women are present in a network, then

those actors in the network (men and women) will receive more social support. Women

are also more likely to “deal” in social capital that is characterized by or related to

13
Lin (2001) uses the terms social capital and social support interchangeably, but it is not clear that these
two terms are equivalent and most researchers using social capital do not use both terms or see them as
the same.

40
emotions. In contrast, men are more likely to have, sustain, and access social capital that

is more instrumental in nature. As Wellman and Frank (2001: 253) note, women tend to

relate “by exchanging emotional support while men interact ‘side by side’ by exchanging

goods and services.”

Several authors in the edited volume, Gender and Social Capital (O’Neill and

Gidengil, 2006), focus on refuting Putnam’s (2000) claims that women’s entry into the

workforce has led to a decrease in civic participation (i.e., social capital). These chapters

bring in gender as a component of civic life, specifically with regard to social capital.

However, what is interesting is that most of these studies conceptualize gender as an

important component of the model, but do not conceive of “gendered” social capital.

One exception is Norris and Inglehart (2006). Norris and Inglehart (2006) look at

Putnam’s treatment of gender and social capital (i.e., that women’s move into the work

force greatly affected civic participation) and report three important findings. First, that

sex-segregation in key civic groups does influence the social capital that women can

build in the political field. Second, there is a “gender gap” in memberships with regard to

associations. The authors cite this finding as evidence that gender should be included

when considering social capital and that it is not a “gender-neutral phenomenon” (Norris

and Inglehart 2006: 93). And finally, they report that informal networks influenced the

types of social capital that women had compared to men (this finding came when

considering the gender gap in formal associations). The point here is that men and

women experience social capital very differently (Norris and Inglehart 2006). Therefore,

it is incumbent upon us to explore whether gender should be included in the

conceptualization and measurement of social capital itself.

41
 Aguilera (2002) found, with the SCCBS, that there were some gender differences

when using a general conceptualization of social capital. For one, women who tend to

have more diverse friendships also work more hours. For the most part social capital had

a positive impact on hours worked for both men and women. However, white women

with leader friends were less likely to have jobs. Further, white women with friends who

own their own business worked fewer hours than white women who did not have that

type of friendship. Finally, women in this study were found to have benefits from having

diverse social networks, where men did not.

Interestingly, Aguilera’s (2002) study looked at the intersection of race and

gender and found that black women with friends who were on welfare tended to not have

jobs when compared to black women without friends on welfare. White women who

were engaged in a social group were six times more likely to have a job than those who

were not. White males benefitted most from having a friend who owned their own

business. The only groups that had any positive effects from the number of hours they

worked were black men and white women. There were positive effects for black men

who knew manual workers. White women who had more than six friends worked longer

hours, and those who had diverse networks also tended to work more hours. However,

white women who had a personal friend that owned their own business worked less

hours.

Social capital as a concept is deceptively simple. As supported in the literature,

social capital is not the same for everyone. It varies across class, race, and gender

groups. Thus the distinctions should be reflected in social capital’s conception as well as

its empirical measures.

42
Research Questions and Hypotheses

Drawing on the preceding review of the theoretical and empirical literatures on

social capital, the first empirical issues I address concerns the extent to which the three

theoretical frameworks are supported empirically and whether social capital differs across

three key socio-demographic positions: class, race, and gender.

Research Question One: Are Putnam’s, Coleman’s and Bourdieu’s

conceptualizations of social capital supported empirically?

Many assume that these conceptualizations of social capital are not only

essentially similar, but can be modeled empirically. In contrast, the current study

conceptualizes this as an empirical question to be addressed rather than a theoretical

truism to be assumed. Thus, it remains to be seen whether the three theories of social

capital can each be modeled empirically. In order to answer ‘yes’ to Research Question

One, each social capital model should be able to be specified and each of the models

should produce a good fit when performing confirmatory factor analysis.

Research Question Two: Does the structure of social capital operate differently

along class, race, and gender lines?

As shown in the previous section, researchers have shown that social capital can

operate differently across class, race, and gender groups. Most have focused on the

differing levels of social capital for these groups, however, the current study focuses on

the structure of social capital. In expecting that the “structure” of social capital operates

differently across class, racial, and gender groups, I am suggesting that the underlying

structure varies as well. Focusing on the structure of social capital reveals for each group

how social capital is captured for each group. If there are group differences, then it can

43
be argued that for the group with larger parameter estimates that aspect of social capital is

more important. Another way to interpret these results is to think of that aspect of social

capital manifesting differently for one group versus another group. This structural

analysis will be conducted for class, race, and gender groups. In order for any of the

following hypotheses to be supported, a Likelihood ratio test will be used. If the test is

significant, then there are important structural group differences.

Income can be termed an important material resource, while it in and of itself

does not relate directly to social capital, Coleman and Bourdieu argue that in different

ways different forms of capital can be used to attain other forms. Bourdieu (1997) in

particular views all forms of capital as fungible and ultimately tied to economic capital.

Putnam focuses less on economic resources, but does not completely disregard them.

Moreover, the literature examining social capital in general terms identifies potentially

important differences by income. Not only does social capital appear to operate

differently depending on income, but there is substantial evidence for both racial and

gender variation in social capital as well (Stack 1974; Rochelle 1997; Smith 2005;

Aguilera 2002; Norris and Inglehardt 2006; O’Neill and Gidengil, 2006; Wellman and

Frank 2001;Parks-Yancy et al. 2008). Therefore, I hypothesize the following for each of

the three social capital models (i.e., that of Putnam, Coleman, and Bourdieu):

Hypothesis One: The structure of social capital operates differently across lower,

middle, and upper income groups.

Hypothesis Two: The structure of social capital operates differently across White

and Non-White racial groups.

44
 Hypothesis Three: The structure of social capital operates differently for men and

women.

45
 CHAPTER III

DATA AND METHODS

The Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) was conducted by

the Saguaro Seminar at the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

University (2000). Robert Putnam was a member of the team that compiled the survey

instrument and measures therein. It is possible then that his involvement may bias how

the questions were worded in the survey as well as the types of questions asked. The

major strength and what makes the SCCBS truly unique was the heavy emphasis on

social capital. Its measures were specifically designed to capture the different aspects of

social capital, including community activism, civic involvement, connections to friends

and family, neighbors, and local institutions. Additionally, socio-demographic variables

related to class, race and gender were gathered. Therefore, it was uniquely suitable to

address the questions posed in this study.

To date there were no other datasets, including the GSS, which could compare to

the SCCBS in terms of its ability to measure different facets of social capital (Messner,

Baumer, and Rosenfeld 2004). Messner et al (2004) do point out however, that one

limitation of the SCCBS was its low response rate. About 42% of those who were

reached via telephone actually completed the survey, “which reflects 29 percent of all the

persons in the sampling frame” (886).

46
 The data for the survey were gathered using telephone surveys across the

continental United States in 2000 and included respondents 18 and older. Proportionate

random sampling was used in the selection of households. Certain questions or indicators

were asked for a subset of the sample randomly selected. Due to the random variation

and the fact that the indicators changed slightly from model to model, the actual sample

size (N) for the following three social capital models varied. Using this dataset meant

using a cross-section for analysis. As such the data is tied to a “moment” in time and

space.

The sample for the entire SCCBS, including regional selections, was 26,000.

However, the national sample size was 3,003 respondents and included an over-sampling

of black and Hispanic respondents (500 people from each group). The goal of this study

was to look at broader theoretical topics, not look across specific regions, thus the

national sample was used in the analysis. A full listing of the questions and responses

used in the study can be found in Appendix A, separated by theorists, for ease of

comparison.

The SCCBS dataset has grown in its use by researchers. For example, Aguilera

(2002) used the SCCBS for 2000 in order to assess the relationship between people’s

networks, specifically friendship networks, and work. His study helped to elucidate

racial differences in the relationship between different groups’ labor (hours worked) and

social capital as well as provide support for bringing in more programs with important

information on jobs to disadvantaged communities. Rahn and Rudolph (2005) also used

the SCCBS for their study on public trust, specifically looking at trust in the government

47
at various levels. Messner, Baumer and Rosenfeld (2004) used Putnam’s

conceptualization of social capital to understand crime rates of homicide.

Missing Data

Missing data can be very detrimental to analysis and introduce a substantial

amount of bias (Allison 1999). As Allison (1999) notes, randomly distributed missing

data does lead to as many problems of bias compared to that which is systematically

related to the variables being examined. However, it matters whether the missing in

question is completely at random (MCAR), missing at random (MAR), or missing not at

random (MNAR). The latter two introduce significant bias, whereas the first does not

(Allison 1999).

Missing completely at random means that the missing was not related to any other

variable. Thus, we can say that while there was missing, because it was missing

completely at random, it does not bias the results. Listwise deletion, pairwise deletion

and missing values replacements are common ways to address MCAR (Bollen 1989).

The worst that MCAR could do when used in statistical analysis would be to lessen the

power in the model, especially if the MCAR were to be on the dependent variable(s)

(Howell 2007).

Missing at random is not considered the same as missing completely at random;

here the missing would be seen as random after controlling for another variable. MAR,

while not as good as MCAR, can still be considered ignorable missing (Howell 2007).

Finally, missing not at random would be considered nonignorable missing (Howell

2007), here a clear pattern exists. MNAR must be carefully managed because it causes

48
biased parameter estimates and affects the power of the model (Allison 1999; Bollen

1989; Howell 2007). One of the most common ways to address MNAR would be to use

a Heckman selection model or variant that creates “a new ‘selection equation’ to model

which cases are included or excluded from the sample [where] [t]he equation is

considered simultaneously with the structural equations” (Bollen 1989: 376).

There are many different ways to deal with missing data (Allison 1999; Bollen

1989; Howell 2007). Listwise deletion, for example, removes any cases with missing

information from the analysis. As such it is also known as complete case analysis

because it allows only complete cases to be included. Another method is known as

pairwise deletion or available case analysis, which allows for partial use of the case.

However, Allison (1999) discourages researchers from using this method or replacing the

missing values with the means (Allison 1999). Other benefits of using listwise deletion

include the use of complete cases, and the production of unbiased parameter estimates

when the missing are completely at random (MCAR). The major limitation to this

method is the potential decrease to sample size. Decreasing the sample size has an

impact on the statistical power, however, as long as the sample size is still substantial,

that can be minimized (Allison 1999; Howell 2007).

In the current study, tests were conducted to see if the missing data was random

across cases or were patterned in some way. Three variables had more than 30% of the

sample missing, they were, perception of community trust (missing 1505), worked with

others (missing 1497), and coworker contact (missing 985). The first two variables were

part of a larger skip pattern within the dataset.14 The pattern was administered

14
Due to budget constraints and in an effort to shorten the interview length, certain sections and in some
cases questions within the SCCBS were “administered to randomly selected halves of the sample…the

49
completely at random and consistently throughout the sample, thus the missing can be

considered missing completely at random.

Dummy variables indicating “missing” for coworker contact were created and

then cross-tabulated with income, race, and gender using the chi-square significance test

to indicate if the pattern was missing completely at random (MCAR) or missing not at

random (MNAR). When coworker contact was combined with income the chi-square

was 43.6277 with 8 degrees of freedom and was significant at the p< 0.0001 level; with

race the chi-square was 9.6373 with 4 degrees of freedom and was significant the 0.05

level; and finally when coworker contact was combined with gender, the chi-square was

16.7609 with 4 degrees of freedom and was statistically significant at p<.01 level.

Based on chi-square tests, combined with the data instructions for skip-patterns

performed at random in collection, it was determined that the missing data were not

MCAR. A significant chi-square indicates that there was some association between the

row’s and column’s variables that were selectively missing. While the study cannot claim

that the missing were MCAR, following Allison (1999), listwise deletion was used for

the study. 15 Some bias may have been introduced because the missing was not MCAR.

The sample size varied for the analysis depending on the social capital model as well as

the type of analysis being conducted, however, quality analysis in Structural Equation

Modeling in SAS needed a minimum of 200 complete cases and that was easily achieved

(Hatcher 1994).

probability was 50% that any respondent would be administered each section” (SCCBS 2000: p. 9).
There were six different forms and each respondent was randomly given one of the versions of the
survey to answer. Each form took essentially the same amount of time to administer.
15
Listwise deletion allows for the use of complete cases and does not bias parameter estimates when
MCAR (Howell 2007; Bollen 1989).

50
Measurement

This section operationalizes the indicators used in each model. In the following

sections I detail the measures used for each domain and the independent variables.

Descriptive statistics for the measures detailed below can be found in Chapter 4. Finally,

I present the analytical strategies used in the two results chapters (Chapter 4 and Chapter

5).

Dependent Variable: Social Capital

The indicators used to measure social capital were selected based on the

theoretical assumptions, definitions, and conceptualizations of the three major social

capital theorists Robert Putnam (1993, 2000), James Coleman (1988, 1990), and Pierre

Bourdieu (1977,1980,1984,1986, 2002), measures used in previous studies using these

data, and exploratory factor analysis (see Chapter 4 for results). The theoretical

approaches of Putnam, Coleman and Bourdieu directed the construction of the

corresponding empirical models that were then used to test the model fit for each

demographic group (Bollen 1989).

Putnam’s social capital model. Putnam’s (2000) conceptualization of social

capital was comprised of trust (thin and thick) and social ties (the social resources that lie

therein), in the form of memberships, friendships, and altruistic actions. For Putnam

(1993, 2000), having people who volunteer, were involved in many groups and

organizations, and people willing to make things better for those they knew or their

community were clear effects of high levels of social capital.

51
 Putnam (2000) argued that those with social capital will be “joiners” or people

who are active in groups. Being active in groups included mere membership or

participation in group activities, or both.16 Following are the specific indicators for first

bonding social capital, then bridging social capital, and finally trust.

As stated in the theory section, bonding social capital is found in relationships

(ties) that have certain characteristics, such as in-group, specific reciprocity, strong ties,

close relationships, and one where people are more similar than different (Putnam 2000).

At the empirical level this translates into family members, close friends, memberships in

fraternities, sororities, religious or church groups, and ethnic ties.17

The domain of bonding is defined by the following measures: close friends,

shared confidences, and family contact. Close friends was measured by asking the

respondents how many close friends they currently have. Specifically, respondents were

asked “Now, how about friends? About how many CLOSE FRIENDS do you have these

days? These are people you feel at ease with, can talk to about private matters, or call on

for help. Would you say that you have no close friends, one or two, three to five, six to

ten, or more than that?” Responses were coded one for no close friends, two for one to

16
The idea of joining was important to both bonding and bridging social capital, but in different ways. For
bonding, joining was based on similarities between members and on stronger ties. However, bridging
focused more on weak ties built on diverse relationships (Putnam 2000).
17
When the EFA was run using Knudsen’s conceptualization of inclusive versus exclusive groups, or
separating out group membership between bonding and bridging social capital the Cronbach’s Alpha
were very weak suggesting that neither scale was reliable. Moreover, when run in the EFA they both
loaded on the same factor, showing no support for the argument that they are measuring different
aspects of social capital. Thus, the groupinvolvment index was used and ended up measuring bridging
social capital. Perhaps if measures denoting more specifics, time spent, feelings of closeness, one could
make a distinction between those ties that are bonding within groups and those that are bridging.

52
two close friends, three for three to five close friends, four for six to 10 close friends, and

five for more than 10 close friends18.

Share confidences looked at the number of ties that a respondent had with whom

they felt comfortable sharing intimate or personal information about themselves or their

experiences. Respondents were asked “Right now, how many people do you have in

your life with whom you can share confidences or discuss a difficult decision – nobody,

one, two, or three or more?” Response categories were coded (1) nobody, (2) for one, (3)

for two, (4) for three or more.

Finally, family contact asked respondents how often they go to visit their family.

The continuous variable was used in all analysis ranging from 0 (none) to 53

(respondents who stated more than 53 were coded as 53). For this question respondents

were asked “(How many times in the past 12 months have you) visited relatives in person

or had them visit you?” The interviewer was asked to give the respondent time to

consider their answer.

Bridging social capital focused on the less close ties, or “weak” ties19 (Putnam

2000). According to Putnam (2000), by focusing on ties that are not as integrated in

one’s personal network, then one is able to connect to other networks and branch out.

Putnam views diversity as a way to see these bridging ties (2000). The domain of

bridging social capital used three indicators, diversity, group involvement scale, and

worked with others. The diversity scale was comprised from a series of questions that

asked respondents the following broad prompt followed by specific questions, “[t]hinking

now about everyone that you would count as a PERSONAL FRIEND, not just your

18
In the SCCBS all responses of “don’t know” were coded as 8, 88, or 888; and all refusals were coded as
9, 99, or 999.
19
See Granovetter’s seminal work or previous discussion in chapter 2.

53
closest friends- do you have a personal friend who…” “owns their own business”, “is a

manual worker”, “has been on welfare”, “owns a vacation home”, “has a different

religion than you”, “is white”, “is Latino or Hispanic”, “is Asian”, “is Black or African

American”, “is Gay or Lesbian”, “you would describe as a community leader”. Each of

the 11 questions in the series (see Appendix A) were dichotomous, yes (1) or no (0) and

combined into a diversity scale that ranged from 0 to 11 where 0 was no diversity in the

network. The Cronbach’s Alpha of reliability is a test for measurement error and

reliability on a scale or index that ranges from zero to one, and for this scale the alpha

was 0.73.20 According to Allison (1999) an alpha of reliability above 0.70 is considered

an acceptable alpha of reliability for the social sciences. Essentially what this statistic

tells us is that 30 percent of the variance for this scale was measurement error, or stated

another way, 70 percent of the variance for this scale was “true” (Allison 1999).

The group involvement index used the question 33 series which measured the

different group memberships of respondents. Each respondent was prompted with the

following and then asked about specific groups and organizations, “Now I’d like to ask

about other kinds of groups and organizations. I’m going to read a list; just answer YES

if you have been involved in the past 12 months with this kind of group.” The indicators

included on the group involvement scale were as follows: “An adult sports club or league,

or an outdoor activity club”, Besides your local place of worship, any organization

affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or B’nai B’rith, or a bible study

group”, “a youth organization like youth sports leagues, the scouts, 4-H clubs, and Boys

& Girls Clubs”, “a parents’ association, like the PTA or PTO, or other school support or

20
The standardized results and raw Cronbach’s alphas did not vary greatly for any index or scale in the
sample, however, all results reported are standardized.

54
service groups”, “a veteran’s group”, “a neighborhood association, like a block

association, a homeowner or tenant association, or a crime watch group”, clubs or

organizations for senior citizens or older people”, “a charity or social welfare

organization that provides services in such fields as health or service to the needy”, “a

labor union”, a professional, trade, farm, or business association”, “service clubs or

fraternal organizations such as the Lions or Kiwanis or a local women’s club or a college

fraternity or sorority”, “ethnic, nationality, or civil rights organizations, such as the

National Organization for Women, the Mexican American Legal Defense or the

NAACP”, “other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party

committees”, “a literary, art, discussion or study group or a musical, dancing, or singing

group”, “any other hobby, investment, or garden clubs or societies”, “a support group or

self-help program for people with specific illnesses, disabilities, problems, or addictions,

or for their families”, “are you involved in any group that meets only over the Internet”,

“and do you belong to any other kinds of clubs or organizations?” Each of the responses

for the former indicators were coded (0) for no, and (1) for yes. The scale ranged from

zero to 18 where the higher the score, the more involved the respondent was in groups.

The alpha of reliability for this scale was 0.72, this again was considered acceptable and

thus the indicator was retained for this domain (Allison 1999).

Finally, worked with others asked respondents whether or not they had worked

with others to fix or perhaps improve something in their neighborhood. Specifically,

respondents were asked “In the past two years, have you worked with others to get people

in your immediate neighborhood to work together to fix or improve something?”

Respondents could reply with either yes (1) or no (0).

55
 Finally, for the trust domain, perception of community trust was one of three

questions used to measure trust. This variable was measured by asking respondents

whether they felt that people in their community would restrict their use of water or other

important community resources in the event of a necessary emergency, such as a water

shortage. Respondents could reply with very likely (5), likely (4), depends (3), unlikely

(2), or very unlikely (1). Whereas, rate your community was a general measure of the

respondent’s view of their community from poor, only fair, good, or excellent (0 – 3).

The social trust index was composed of six trust questions that included general

trust, trust of one’s neighbors, trust of co-workers, trust of fellow congregants, trust of

store employees where they shopped, and trust of the local police. This was an index

created by the SCCBS that ranged from -2.49 to 1.01 and included the Question 7 series

that asked respondents whether they felt that people in different areas of their life could

be trusted or not, such as at work, places one shops, in general, or in one’s neighborhood.

A minimum of three answers from the six indicators had to be present in order for a

calculated score.

The survey first asked respondents “Now, I want to ask you some questions about

how you view other people. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be

trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” Possible responses for

this measure included, people can be trust (1), you can’t be too careful (2), and depends

(3). After which respondents were prompted with “[n]ext, we’d like to know how much

you trust different groups of people. First, think about (GROUP). Generally speaking,

would you say that you can trust them a lot, some, only a little, or not at all?” Then,

respondents were asked about trust related to specific groups, including “people in your

56
neighborhood”, “people you work with”, people at your church or place of worship”,

“people who work in the stores where you shop”, and “the police in your local

community”. The index was constructed using standardized responses to the questions.

The alpha of reliability for this index was fairly strong at 0.81, meaning that only 19

percent of the variance shown in the analysis was measurement error (Allison 1999).

Coleman’s social capital model. The following is a list of indicators from the

Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS) that fit the three parts of

Coleman’s theory of social capital. Nine specific questions from the SCCBS are included

to measure the concepts of expectations/obligations, information channels, social norms,

and underlying these, trust. Specific questions can be viewed in Appendix A.

Coleman (1988) first looked at social resources in the context of social

interactions within social structures and more specifically social exchanges based on trust

and reciprocity. Of the three domains of social capital that Coleman (1988, 1990)

described, this form was the most frequently discussed in the literature (E/O). Trust

underlies all three forms of social capital, but was included as a proxy for social norms

(Coleman 1988). This section details the measures used for the domains of

expectation/obligation (E/O), information channels (IC), and finally social norms

(SN).

For the expectation/obligation domain, the group involvement index (Question

33 series) was created using 18 questions that asked respondents to answer yes (1) or no

(0) to being a member of certain types of groups in the past 12 months. Each respondent

was prompted with the following and then asked about specific groups and organizations,

“Now I’d like to ask about other kinds of groups and organizations. I’m going to read a

57
list; just answer YES if you have been involved in the past 12 months with this kind of

group.” The indicators included on the group involvement scale were as follows: “An

adult sports club or league, or an outdoor activity club”, Besides your local place of

worship, any organization affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or

B’nai B’rith, or a bible study group”, “a youth organization like youth sports leagues, the

scouts, 4-H clubs, and Boys & Girls Clubs”, “a parents’ association, like the PTA or

PTO, or other school support or service groups”, “a veteran’s group”, “a neighborhood

association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant association, or a crime watch

group”, clubs or organizations for senior citizens or older people”, “a charity or social

welfare organization that provides services in such fields as health or service to the

needy”, “a labor union”, a professional, trade, farm, or business association”, “service

clubs or fraternal organizations such as the Lions or Kiwanis or a local women’s club or a

college fraternity or sorority”, “ethnic, nationality, or civil rights organizations, such as

the National Organization for Women, the Mexican American Legal Defense or the

NAACP”, “other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party

committees”, “a literary, art, discussion or study group or a musical, dancing, or singing

group”, “any other hobby, investment, or garden clubs or societies”, “a support group or

self-help program for people with specific illnesses, disabilities, problems, or addictions,

or for their families”, “are you involved in any group that meets only over the Internet”,

“and do you belong to any other kinds of clubs or organizations?” Each of the responses

for the former indicators were coded (0) for no, and (1) for yes. The scale ranged from

zero to 18 where the higher the score, the more involved the respondent was in groups.

58
The Cronbach’s Alpha of reliability for this index was .72, which was deemed acceptable

(Allison 1999).

The second measure for the E/O domain was other church participation. This

indicator looked at whether or not respondents had participated in any church functions

or activities beyond worshipping at services in the past 12 months, the response

categories were yes (1) or no (0). Specifically participants in the study were asked “In

the past 12 months, have you taken part in any sort of activity with people at your church

or place of worship other than attending services? This might include teaching Sunday

school, serving on a committee, attending choir rehearsal, retreat, or other things.”

The final measure for the E/O domain was club meetings. This asked respondents

how often in the past 12 months they had attended a club meeting, specifically, “(How

many times in the past twelve months have you) attended a club meeting?” The

responses ranged from 0 to 53, anything over 53 times was capped at 53.

For the domain of information channels, measures in the form of survey

questions were included that were in line theoretically with Coleman’s second form of

social capital, information channels (IC). He specifically wrote about IC’s working as a

tie where the actor had access to information they might otherwise not have time to find

or any access to without that particular connection. Any type of information that would

be considered useful was included in the conceptualization, including but not limited to

political, social, medical, etc. (Coleman 1988). Therefore, the measures chosen for the

IC domain were based on ties that encompassed specific information, such as fictive kin,

business owner, and vacation home.

59
 Fictive kin measures the number of other adults that the respondent can name who

s/he considers to be “like family”, “How many other adults, if any, do you treat as

members of your family even though they are not related to you? (IF NECESSARY:

These are people who are regularly included in family gatherings and celebrations, and

who may be called "uncle" or "aunt" although they are not.” The responses were coded 0

to 10 where 0 means there was no one to fill that role and 10 was a category for 10 or

more persons named by the respondent.

Respondents were asked in two separate questions whether they had a personal

friend who (1) owned their own business (business owner) “has personal friend who own

a business” or (2) owned their own vacation home “has a personal friend who owns a

vacation home”, coded either yes (1) or no (0).

Lastly, for the social norms domain, Coleman (1988) alluded to trust while

discussing social norms as a form of social capital, but did not explicitly write that trust

equals social norms. This project viewed norms as the shared expectations for any given

social circumstance. In choosing measures for this form of social capital, it was clear that

rate your community and perception of community trust were two of the few measures

from the SCCBS that came close to approximating social norms. The first, rate your

community asked respondents to rate their community on a scale from poor, only fair,

good, or excellent (0 to 3), and looked at how the respondent viewed their community in

general. This was a good measure for social norms, because norms are generally

considered tied to expectations and one can argue that those who saw their community as

excellent would expect positive social norms to be present in the community. The

specific question asked of respondents was “Overall, how would you rate your

60
community as a place to live — excellent, good, only fair, or poor?” with the response

categories of “poor”, “only fair”, “good”, or “excellent”. The responses were reverse

coded from how they were asked and coded initially so that an increase meant a positive

response (see Appendix A).

While the second indicator on the social norms domain, perception of community

trust, focused on whether respondents felt it was likely that people would cooperate

together to save water or electricity, “Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about the

local community where you live. If public officials asked everyone to conserve water or

electricity because of some emergency, how likely is it that people in your community

would cooperate — would you say it is very likely, likely, unlikely, or very unlikely?“

This measure was coded very unlikely (1), unlikely (2), neither/depends [volunteered]

(3), likely (4), and very likely (5). Perception of community trust was related to social

norms because it directly asked whether or not respondents expected others in their

community to act in a certain way. Essentially this measure asked respondents about a

specific social norm in their community: what they expected from their neighbors should

there be a need to conserve resources for the good of the community. Sanctions also

anchor normative behaviors such as water conservation and neighborhood effects that

tend to reflect underlying rules as well as sanctions for breaking them (Demant and

Jarvinen 2011).

Because trust was an important component of both measures, and trust or trusting

is linked to social norms, a third measure of trust, the social trust index, was included on

the SN domain as well. This was an index created by the SCCBS that ranged from -2.49

to 1.01 and included the Question 7 series that asked respondents whether they felt that

61
people in different areas of their life could be trusted or not, such as at work, places one

shops, in general, or in one’s neighborhood. A minimum of three answers from the six

indicators had to be present in order for a calculated score.

The survey first asked respondents “Now, I want to ask you some questions about

how you view other people. Generally speaking, would you say that most people can be

trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with people?” Possible responses for

this measure included, people can be trust (1), you can’t be too careful (2), and depends

(3). After which respondents were prompted with “[n]ext, we’d like to know how much

you trust different groups of people. First, think about (GROUP). Generally speaking,

would you say that you can trust them a lot, some, only a little, or not at all?” Then,

respondents were asked about trust related to specific groups, including “people in your

neighborhood”, “people you work with”, people at your church or place of worship”,

“people who work in the stores where you shop”, and “the police in your local

community”. The index was constructed using standardized responses to the questions.

The alpha of reliability for this index was fairly strong at 0.81, meaning that only 19

percent of the variance shown in the analysis was measurement error (Allison 1999).

Bourdieu’s social capital model. Social capital according to Bourdieu (1984)

must be understood in context, thus the items for social capital under Bourdieu were

divided into different fields. For Bourdieu (1977, 1980, 1984, 2002), social capital is

found in the relations between positions as well as with the actor. However, in order to

understand the currency of social capital one should assess the interactions/relations

62
between individuals and groups. These do overlap some with Coleman and Putnam, but

that was to be expected.

While not all aspects of Bourdieu’s theory of inequality have been included, the

current study was able to examine class, race, and gender patterns across models to assess

structural position effects in social capital. Research using Bourdieu has in the past

singled out one or more aspects of his theory, i.e. cultural capital (see Lamont and Lareau

1988; Lamont 2012). It was therefore important to understand how Bourdieu interpreted

theoretical concepts and how his view affected measurement. For Bourdieu concepts

were “‘polymorphic, supple and adaptive, rather than defined calibrated and used rigidly’

(Bourdieu and Wacquant 1992: 23). The measures included for Bourdieu were therefore

chosen using his definition of social capital and the concept of field from a dataset

designed to capture the rich ‘concept’ of social capital.

For the Religious Field domain, volunteer religious, religious membership and

religious groups were used. Volunteer religious was measured by asking respondents if

they had volunteered in the past 12 months for their “place of worship”, yes (1) or no (0).

The specific question asked of respondents was “I’m going to list some of the types of

organizations where people do volunteer work. Just tell me whether you have done any

volunteer work for each in the past twelve months.”

Also on the religious domain was the measure religious membership. This was

also a dichotomous variable where yes (1) meant one was a member of a church,

synagogue or other religious organization and no (0) meant they were not. The

interviewer would ask participants in the study “[a]re you a member of a local church,

synagogue, or other religious or spiritual community?”

63
 The last indicator for the religious domain was religious groups. This was part of

a larger series of questions asking whether respondents had any involvement in the past

12 months with various groups. Religious groups specifically asked “(Besides your local

place of worship,) Any organization affiliated with religion such as the Knights of

Columbus or B’nai B’rith…or a bible study group?” and was coded 0 for no and 1 for

yes.

The Community Field domain was derived from friend contact, hanging with

friends, and coworker contact. These variables were coded with the number of times one

visited with friends, were hanging out with friends socially, or spending time with

coworkers (truncated at 53). Specifically, respondents were asked “(How many times in

the past twelve months have you) had friends over to your home?”, “(How many times in

the past twelve motnhs have you) hung out with friends at a park, shopping mall, or other

public place?”, and “(How many times in the past twelve months have you) socialized

with coworkers outside of work?”

Finally, for the Political Field domain, rally, public interest, petition, and

neighborhood association were used. Rally asked whether one had attended a political

rally in the past 12 months, specifically “[a]ttended a political meeting or rally?“; coded

yes (1) or no (0). Public interest asked respondents if they were a member of any “other

public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party committees”,

where ‘yes’ was coded (1) and ‘no’ was coded (0). Petition asked respondents “have you

signed a petition?”, coded (1) yes, and (0) no. Neighborhood association measured

whether one had been a member of a neighborhood association in the past 12 months, yes

(1) or no (0). The question asked of participants was worded “[a] neighborhood

64
association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant association, or a crime watch

group.”

Independent Variables

The following section looked at the independent variables including class, race

and gender. Originally class was to be measured using income, education and

occupation. However, there were no real measures for occupation in the SCCBS and

when the variable for income was combined with education in the multi-sample SEM, the

sample size dipped below 200 respondents, 200 being the cut-off for running a model in

SEM (Hatcher 1994). In order to ensure the integrity of the method being used, income

was used as a measure for social class. While class is a multi-dimensional concept

(Weber 1946), this was not the first time the data did not allow for a deeper measure of it.

Other research has used household yearly income as a measure for one’s wealth and as a

proxy for social class has been done in the past (Fritzell, Nermo, and Lundberg 2004;

Wamala, Ahnquist and Mansdotter 2009). Therefore, the question asking for a

respondent’s yearly household income was used and recoded as lower (under

$30,000/year), middle ($30,000 and over, but less than $75,000), and upper ($75,000 but

less than $100,000 and over $100,000 were combined) income groups.

Race was measured by asking respondents whether they considered themselves to

be “White, Black or African American, Asian or Pacific Islander, Native American, or

some other race?” The interest of this particular study focused on any major differences

between whites and non-white. Thus, this measure was coded 0 for non-whites and 1 for

whites. This measure did not include those who self-identified as Hispanic.

65
 Gender was recorded by the interviewer, and if needed the interviewer was told to

prompt the respondent with “I am recording your gender as male/female.” It was recoded

0 for men and 1 for women. It was understood by the researcher that although the prompt

was labeled gender, there are many layers and other categories beyond male and female.

However, for the purposes of looking at general differences between the larger “norms”

of male and female in American society, they were used for the following analysis.

Analytic Strategy

There were two parts to the analytical strategy, corresponding to the two research

questions posed earlier. In order to answer the first research question, are Putnam’s,

Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s theories of social capital modeled separately supported

empirically, it was necessary to model each theorist’s approach to social capital using the

SCCBS. Based on the theories, different items were chosen and presented above (please

see chapter 4 for descriptive of each indicator). These were inputted first into an

exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using squared multiple correlations as prior

communality estimates. A principle factor method was used to extract factors; followed

by a promax (oblique) rotation (Hatcher 1994). The main purpose of the EFA was to aid

in the creation of the final model for each theorist. At no point was an EFA used to test

directly any hypotheses or research question. Its sole purpose for the current study was to

aide and find support for how the indicators were arranged by domain in each model.

Exploratory factor analysis helps a researcher to “see” underlying abstract concepts, or

factors. One can think of these factors linked to the domains for each model. When a

variable(s) loads on a factor it indicates an underlying or latent abstract concept or from

66
here on called domain (Hatcher 1994). Thus, when a variable only loads at .40 or higher

on a factor, and on only one factor, we can argue that it supports that the indicator(s) is

measuring a specific latent domain. The EFA for each theorist helped in assessing how

well the items had been distributed based on the theoretical variables they were meant to

measure. Thus, EFA was the first step toward building a model. In combination with the

EFA, a dataset specifically meant to measure social capital (SCCBS) and social capital

theories were used to create each social capital model.

The second step to being able to answer Research Question one, and the actual

test for research one, was to employ confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)21. CFA is well-

suited to this task because it relies heavily on theory and allows for a test of the model fit

on empirical data. Proc Calis in SAS was used to develop appropriate measurement

models. A measurement model allows one to search for empirical support that one’s

items are measuring the underlying, abstract constructs under consideration. Moreover,

the measurement model does not focus on causal relationships and the latent domains are

free to correlate to one another its sole focus is whether the model has been specified well

(Hatcher 1994). Using model fit statistics, a model was determined to have a “good”

model fit or not. A “good fit” meant that the theoretical model approximated the actual

empirical data. If a “good fit” was found, then we were able to provide support for

21
This dissertation utilized Benter’s (1989) standard of noting manifest variables with a“V” for variable (as
shown in Figure 4.2), however, it uses D for domain as opposed to F for factor because of the nature of
the research project. For example, the figure showed that the E/O construct (D1) was measured using
manifest variables V15, V16, and V21, the IC construct (D2) was measured utilizing manifest variables
V12, V27, and V28, and so on. The measurement model posits that latent variables covary. Therefore a
covariance is estimated to connect each latent variable with every other latent variable in the model.
These are easily identifiable in the measurement model figure by a curved, two-headed arrow
connecting the F variables to one another. Stated another way, “a measurement model is equivalent to a
confirmatory factor analysis model in which each latent construct is allowed to covary with every other
latent construct” (Hatcher 1994: p. 415).

67
Research Question one. CFA differs from EFA in many ways, one of which is that with

EFA it is not always known how many latent variables will emerge, if any. However, in

CFA, one needs to have a clear vision and understanding of the theory because the

researcher must input a formed theoretical model using empirical measures. The idea

behind both CFA and SEM in fact, is that they are grounded in theory, and being that this

project is a test of three theorists’ conceptualizations of social capital, these methods were

used for analysis in this study.

In order to answer Research Question two and test the hypotheses associated with

it, structural equation modeling (SEM) was employed using multi-sample method to test

whether there were differences in the structure of social capital based on the social

inequalities of class, race, and gender. It was important to look for group differences on

social capital because “if parameter values differ across groups, we run the risk of

making serious errors” (Bollen 1989: 355). The examples that Bollen (1989) used

compared female and male job satisfaction, if one assumed that job satisfaction operated

the same for men and women, then one ran the risk of mis-interpreting females for

example as having had lower job satisfaction than men. Using the SEM multi-sample

method also provided the use of model fit statistics in order to test all parts of the model

and latent variables along specific group lines and see if there were indeed differences. A

chi-square differential test showed whether one model was statistically better than

another and if differences that existed between the different groups were significant

(Hatcher, 1994).

The second step in the analysis, multi-sample SEM, used Proc Calis in SAS. The

multi-sample SEM procedure was optimal for testing these three hypotheses because it

68
allowed use of the three social capital models generated and tested in the first step of

analysis on separate groups simultaneously. For example, instead of having to run

models for women and men completely separate, using multi-sample SEM allowed for a

test of the overall fit of the model(s) across men and women at the same time. Thus we

could look at the form of the model and whether there were structural differences across

the different groups in the same run (Bollen 1989; Kline 2011; Peng 1992).

Whether to accept or reject a particular model is considered less black and white

in SEM than grey, “[i]f we consider the X2 test as a statistical method for evaluation

models, and the fit indexes as more descriptive than statistical, it is seen that both

approaches can work well and be trusted under some conditions” (Hu and Bentler 1995:

98). Therefore, it is important to not only consider one test when either accepting or

rejecting a model, but the overall picture.

In order to determine whether the null hypothesis was rejected for a particular

model, the chi-square and chi-square ratio were used. As with any SEM, a significant

chi-square meant that we could not reject the null hypothesis which states that the data fit

the model. Therefore, we want to have a non-significant chi-square in order to keep the

null hypothesis, because we want to show that the model fits the data. Because the chi-

square is sensitive to sample size, other fit statistics and something known as a chi-square

ratio is often used to ascertain whether to reject the null hypothesis (Hu and Bentler

1995), a 2:1 ratio or lower is considered good.

While the chi-square was used as a sharp test of the hypothesis, it was not the

only test used to determine whether to keep a model (Bollen 1989; Hoyle 1995; Hu and

Bentler 1995; Kline 2011). Other fit statistics used were Bentler’s comparative fit index

69
(CFI), which has shown again and again to be a good index to use, as well as the

Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) (Kline 2011). All fit indexes used in the analysis for

goodness of fit, or how well the data fits the model overall, can be considered to show a

good fit when over 0.90, where 1.0 is best (Hu and Bentler 1995). RMSR, and root mean

square error of approximation (RMSEA). The latter works in the reverse from the other

fit indexes where the closer to zero the RMSEA is, the better the fit. Any finding for

RMSEA that is larger than 0.08 is considered to “not fit.”

For the purposes of this project, a chi-square ratio of 2:1 or smaller is considered

best, but larger ones will be considered if the fit indexes along with RMSR and RMSEA

show a good fit. Fit indexes of 0.90 or higher are considered supporting a model ‘fit’,

while RMSR and RMSEA need to be below .08.

Using multi-sample SEM it was possible to test different parameters using the

social capital model forms across groups. First, datasets were created for each group, e.g.

for gender a male dataset and female dataset were created respectively. The same model

created in the CFA was used in this step of analysis, however, it was run on the newly

created group datasets in the same model. The overall fit was reported (Peng 1992) and

showed whether or not the model fit the groups when separated. This was done for the

model when the parameters were allowed to estimate freely for each group, as well as

when they were constrained to be the same across groups. In order to know which model

was the better model, whether there were differences or not, a chi-distribution was used.

If the findings in the simpler, constrained model were significantly different from the

more complex, unconstrained model, then we could say that there were differences across

70
social capital based on those particular groups. Thus, the more complex model would be

accepted and parameters reported.

It is important to note that the dependent variables in the multi-sample SEM

model are the indicators (see Figures in Chapters 4 and 5 for where the arrows point to

the indicators). Therefore, the latent construct or domain(s) are considered the

independent variable(s) in the analysis. Because of the abstract nature of the latent

domains, (it is difficult for example to determine what a unit increase in bonding social

capital domain is) the standardized betas were reported for each individual model (group)

while the unstandardized parameters were used to look between groups (models).

In sum, the first step of analysis looked at the exploratory factor analysis and

confirmatory factor analysis in conjunction with theory to produce theoretically sound

models that also fit the data. Secondly, those same models were then used in multi-

sample SEM to test whether there were significant differences between the various

income, race, and gender groups for each theorist’s model of social capital.

71
 CHAPTER IV

BUILDING SOCIAL CAPITAL MODELS

This chapter reports results of tests for the social capital models for Putnam,

Coleman and Bourdieu based on Research Question one. As such, the chapter also

presents the constructed social capital models for Putnam, Coleman, and Bourdieu. In

order to create each of the three final models, indicators were entered in an exploratory

factor analysis. Combined with the theoretical arguments presented earlier, a model was

created to reflect each theorists’ ideas and a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was run

to assess the fit of each and provide a test for Research Question one. The CFA shows

the extent to which each model has been measured well and if the configuration and

model structure are sound (Hatcher 1994). The convergence criterion was satisfied for

every model reported below (Hatcher 1994). While important, a model could potentially

not be identified that satisfied the convergence criteria. Therefore, for each model both

the general requirements and the requirements for CFA identification were met.22 Before

22
Identification refers to the ability of the structural equation model to be able to produce a unique solution,
“whether it is theoretically possible for the computer to derive a unique set of model parameter
estimates” (Kline 2011: 124). The general requirements for meeting identification in SEM are as
follows: 1) the degree of freedom for the model has to be no less than zero; 2) The latent domains must
be given a metric. In the current study each model had df that was over zero and in every model the
domains were set to 1, providing a metric (Kline 2011). There are further requirements for CFA
models, including that each domain has a minimum of three indicators and should the model have only
two latent domains, each domain should have a minimum of two indicators. The models provided in
the current study follow the former where each domain has a minimum of three indicators (Kine 2011).
There are other empirical checks that one can perform to test for identification, but for most fulfilling
the requirements listed as well as having the convergence criteria met indicates that the model has been
identified. Therefore, for the current study each model was identified using these criteria (Kline 2011).

72
presenting the first wave of results, descriptive statistics for the indicators used in each of

the social capital models are presented together below. To avoid redundancy, the

indicators are not divided by theorist.

Descriptive Statistics

As shown in Table 4.1, respondents from the SCCBS averaged three friends; this

was closely related to the three people they would feel comfortable sharing confidences.

In general, participants in the national study visited with family [contact] in 2000 around

23 times. On the scale of diversity,23 overall, respondents scored a six where the scale

ranged from 0 to 11, the latter being the most diverse and had a standard deviation of 2.7.

Therefore, we can say that 68.26 percent of the sample scored between 3.3 and 8.7 on the

diversity scale. For the group involvement index24, the average index was 3.10 and the

23 As stated previously in chapter three, The diversity scale was comprised from a series of questions that
asked respondents the following broad prompt followed by specific questions, “[t]hinking now about
everyone that you would count as a PERSONAL FRIEND, not just your closest friends- do you have a
personal friend who…” “owns their own business”, “is a manual worker”, “has been on welfare”, “owns a
vacation home”, “has a different religion than you”, “is white”, “is Latino or Hispanic”, “is Asian”, “is
Black or African American”, “is Gay or Lesbian”, “you would describe as a community leader”. Each of
the 11 questions in the series (see Appendix A) were dichotomous, yes (1) or no (0) and combined into a
diversity scale that ranged from 0 to 11 where 0 was no diversity in the network. The Cronbach’s Alpha of
reliability is a test for measurement error and reliability on a scale or index that ranges from zero to one,
and for this scale the alpha was 0.73.
24
For the social trust index, as detailed in chapter three and Appendix A, each respondent was prompted
with the following and then asked about specific groups and organizations, “Now I’d like to ask about other
kinds of groups and organizations. I’m going to read a list; just answer YES if you have been involved in
the past 12 months with this kind of group.” The indicators included on the group involvement scale were
as follows: “An adult sports club or league, or an outdoor activity club”, Besides your local place of
worship, any organization affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or B’nai B’rith, or a
bible study group”, “a youth organization like youth sports leagues, the scouts, 4-H clubs, and Boys & Girls
Clubs”, “a parents’ association, like the PTA or PTO, or other school support or service groups”, “a
veteran’s group”, “a neighborhood association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant association,
or a crime watch group”, clubs or organizations for senior citizens or older people”, “a charity or social
welfare organization that provides services in such fields as health or service to the needy”, “a labor union”,
a professional, trade, farm, or business association”, “service clubs or fraternal organizations such as the
Lions or Kiwanis or a local women’s club or a college fraternity or sorority”, “ethnic, nationality, or civil
rights organizations, such as the National Organization for Women, the Mexican American Legal Defense
or the NAACP”, “other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party committees”,

73
standard deviation was 2.78. The index ranged from 0 to 18. Thus we can say that 68.26

percent of the sample scored between 0.32 and 5.88 for group involvement. Under half,

or 31 percent, of the sample reported working with others.

On an index from -2.49 to 1.01, in general, respondents scored a -0.05 on the

social trust index with a standard deviation of 0.73. Therefore we can say that 68.26

percent of the sample fell between -0.78 and 0.68 on the social trust index. For the most

part then, this sample had an average level of trust, not extremely high (closer to 1.01),

but not weak or distrustful either (closer to -2.49). Overall the sample converged around

very likely to perceive their community as trustworthy, with a mean of 4.25 and a

standard deviation of 0.89 where 5 was most likely and 1 was least likely on perception

of community trust. Overall, respondents rated their community as good with a mean of

2.21 and a standard deviation of 0.76 where 3 was excellent and 0 was poor.

Respondents from the SCCBS in 2000, had on average three (3.44) people they

felt were like family or fictive kin. The standard deviation for this indicator was 3.76 and

ranged from zero to 10. Thus, for this sample, 68.26 percent of the sample had between

zero and seven (7.2) fictive kin. Forty-six percent of the sample reported being active in

other church participation and overall respondents attended one club meeting in the past

12 months. The mean for club meeting was 1.01 with a 1.55 standard deviation in an

indicator that ranged from zero to six. Sixty-three percent of the sample reported knowing

“a literary, art, discussion or study group or a musical, dancing, or singing group”, “any other hobby,
investment, or garden clubs or societies”, “a support group or self-help program for people with specific
illnesses, disabilities, problems, or addictions, or for their families”, “are you involved in any group that
meets only over the Internet”, “and do you belong to any other kinds of clubs or organizations?” Each of
the responses for the former indicators were coded (0) for no, and (1) for yes. The scale ranged from zero
to 18 where the higher the score, the more involved the respondent was in groups. The alpha of reliability
for this scale was 0.72

74
someone who owned their own business (business owner) while, 44 percent of the sample

knew someone who owned their own vacation home.

Nearly 30 percent (0.29) of the sample reported volunteering religiously in the

past 12 months, 66 percent of the sample responded yes to having a religious

membership, and 17 percent of respondents said they participated in religious groups.

Therefore, the results indicate that over half of all respondents have some religious

affiliation in the form of religious membership and a large percentage (29) who also

volunteered religiously. Interestingly, a smaller percentage (17 percent) of the sample

takes the time to participate in groups that have a religious connection.

In terms of actual contacts, including the number of times a respondent was in

contact with friends, coworkers or spent time with friends, the average for friend contact

was 20 times in the past year. The mean for this indicator was 20.47, the standard

deviation was 19.24, and the range was from zero to 53 times. Therefore, 68.26 percent

of the sample contacted friends between 1.23 and 39.71 times. For coworker contact the

mean was 13.01 with a standard deviation of 16.65 and ranged from zero to 53. Thus,

68.26 percent of respondents in 2000 contacted their coworkers between zero and 26.66

times. On average, respondents contacted their friends more than their coworkers. Those

from the sample reported hanging with friends on average 15.15 times in the past 12

months. The standard deviation was 18.18 and again it ranged from zero to 53 times.

Consequently, we can say that 68.26 percent of the sample hung out with their friends

between zero and 33.33 times in 2000. For this sample, only 17 percent reported

participating in a rally, and only nine percent responded being involved in public interest

75
groups. In contrast, 35 percent of the sample reported signing a petition, and 22 percent

said they were involved in neighborhood groups (neighborhood association).

Finally, for the independent indicators, the average for income was 2.08, with a

standard deviation of 0.90 and a range of 1 to 3. What this means is that most

respondents fell in the lower and middle income category or less than $75,000/year

(55.41 percent). When breaking down this number, however, the majority (36.4 percent)

of the 55 percent was in the lower income category of less than $30,000/year. For this

sample 44.59 percent reported yearly income in the upper income category. The sample

was comprised of 75 percent Whites and 60 percent women.

76
 Table 4.1. Descriptive Statistics for Social Capital Measures
Mean N Std Dev Minimum Maximum
Friends 3.28275402992 1.0932439 1 5
Share confidences 3.46809222993 0.8419965 1 4
Family contact 23.86059162941 20.3483343 0 53
Diversity 6.08358313003 2.6555550 0 11
Group involvement index 3.09923413003 2.7817831 0 18
Worked with others 0.30942901506 0.4624118 0 1
Social trust index -0.05300032993 0.7246622 -2.49 1.01
Perception of community trust4.25166891498 0.8871234 1 5
Rate your community 2.20847232998 0.7616747 0 3
Fictive kin 3.44032922916 3.7634432 0 10
Other church participation 0.46127692647 0.4985925 0 1
Club meetings 1.01137502989 1.5466435 0 6
Business Owner 0.62969172984 0.4829682 0 1
Vacation home 0.44342822952 0.4968735 0 1
Volunteer religious 0.29433462983 0.4558195 0 1
Religious membership 0.66439652643 0.4722904 0 1
Religious groups 0.17160953001 0.3771035 0 1
Friend contact 20.47020772937 19.2399842 0 53
Coworker contact 13.01238852018 16.6462612 0 53
Hanging with friends 15.15032022967 18.1819210 0 53
Rally 0.17400003000 0.3791727 0 1
Public interest groups 0.09200003000 0.2890741 0 1
Petition 0.34984932987 0.4770020 0 1
Neighborhood association 0.22385083002 0.4168927 0 1
Income 2.08187132736 0.8963996 1 3
Race 0.74786502459 0.4343267 0 1
Gender 0.60039963003 0.4898978 0 1

Putnam’s Social Capital Model

In this section an exploratory factor analysis was presented as a means for

supporting the assertion of three important factors for Putnam, not two. Then a

confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was performed to empirically test Research Question

one for Putnam. Stated here again, Research Question one asked: are Putnam’s,

Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s conceptualizations of social capital supported empirically?

77
For each of the three theorists it was possible that the model would not fit the data and

thus be rejected. Following are the results from the EFA and CFA analyses for Putnam.

Exploratory Factor Analysis: Putnam

The domain of bonding, as represented by indicators friends, shared confidences,

and family contact; the domain of bridging as represented by the indicators diversity,

group involvement index, and worked with others; and the domain of trust as represented

by the social trust index, perceptions of community trust, and rate your community were

subjected to an EFA using squared multiple correlations as prior communality estimates.

In order to extract meaningful factors, the principal factor method was utilized; which

was then followed by a promax rotation (Hatcher 1994). The means with which the

domains were accepted was based on the interpretability criteria presented by Hatcher

(1994). The scree test was used, based on the eigenvalues generated by principal

component analysis, as a visual measure of showing a drop in “variance explained” in the

factors. Where there is a drop, it is customary to use that as the cut-off. The scree test

and eigenvalues showed that the first factor should be retained, but was less clear on

those following. Thus, the interpretability criteria were used. These included having

three indicators that load significantly on each factor, shared conceptual meaning

between indicators on a factor, and support that each factor was measuring a distinct

construct.

78
 ‚
1.75 ˆ
‚
‚
‚ 1
‚
1.50 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
1.25 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
E 1.00 ˆ
i ‚
g ‚
e ‚
n ‚
v 0.75 ˆ
a ‚
l ‚
u ‚ 2
e ‚
s 0.50 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚ 3
0.25 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
0.00 ˆ 4
‚
‚ 5 6
‚
‚ 7 8
-0.25 ˆ 9
‚
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Number

Figure 4.1. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues for Putnam’s Social Capital Model

Table 4.2 showed that instead of two factors, three distinct factors emerged,

bonding, bridging, and trust. Putnam’s theory for social capital focused on two major

forms of social capital, bonding and bridging (Putnam 2000). For Putnam, trust was

important for understanding the basis of both types of social capital. Bonding capital

involves “thick” trust and bridging capital involves what Putnam referred to as “thin”

79
trust. However, as shown in the following analysis, trust, while correlated with bonding

and bridging, emerged as its own factor.

To interpret the rotated factor pattern, one had only to look for indicators that

loaded at .40 or higher (denoted with an *) and be sure that it only loaded on one factor at

that level, or presented with a “simple” structure. Using this criterion, three indicators

clearly loaded for bridging social capital, and trust respectively. However, on bonding

social capital, friends loaded at 0.5825, shared confidences loaded well at 0.57, but family

contact loaded under 0.40 at 0.19. Family Contact clearly does not load as the theory

suggests, but it does load the highest on the bonding factor and theoretically it fits very

well with Putnam’s conceptualization of bonding social capital, where one’s family and

frequency of interaction should lead to bonding social capital (See Table 4.1 and

Appendix A for specific questions). 26

On bridging social capital, diversity had a loading coefficient of 0.44, group

involvement loaded strongly at 0.55, and worked with others loaded at 0.43. The

strongest loadings were on the trust factor, the social trust index and perception of

community trust both loaded at 0.52, and rate your community loaded at 0.58. Thus, the

scree plot, theory, and EFA indicator loadings, showed support for retaining three factors

for further analysis for trust, bonding, and bridging social capital.

25 The standardized loadings were reported for all three social capital models.
26 The EFA use in the current study was to empirically look for support for measures that were cohevsive
or hung together. Those that loaded on a factor with a “simple” structure provided support, but were not
the only criteria for indicators inclusion. Any and all indicators that were removed were not only due to
a loss of loading on a factor, but because conceptually it made sense.

80
 Table 4.2 Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) - Putnam’s Social
Capital Model

Trust Bonding Bridging

Domain Indicators Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
BONDING
Close Friends (V2) 2 58 * -3
Share Confidences (V3) 2 57 * -4
Family Contact (V27) -3 19 ^ 8
BRIDGING
Worked with Others (V25) 0 -8 43 *
Diversity of friends (V9) -3 25 44 *
GroupInvl Index (V20) 2 1 55 *
TRUST
Social Trust Index (V7) 52 * 15 2
Perception of Community Trust (V22) 52 * -4 -7
Rate Your Community (V31) 58 * -4 6
*Printed values are multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer. Values greater than 0.4 are
flagged by an ‘*’ while values used for later anlaysis based on Putnam’s theory are flagged with a ‘^’.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Putnam

As suggested by the results from the EFA, three indicators could be found for

each factor for the confirmatory factor analysis (we used the Proc Calis procedure in SAS

(SAS Institute Inc. 1989)). The following CFA provides a test for the first research

question, whether or not Putnam’s theoretical model for social capital could be

empirically measured. The models tested were covariance structure models with multiple

empirical indicators for the latent indicators.27 The standardized parameter estimates for

each pathway as well as the corresponding t-score were reported in Figure 4.3. The t-

scores were all above 2.0 and ranged between 6 and 20, indicating that the loadings were

significant (p< .001). The t-scores provided support for the convergent validity of the

27 A minimum of three indicators were used for each domain throughout the analysis, the method of using
the 3 indicator rule promotes robustness (Bollen 1989).

81
indicators (Anderson and Gerbing 1988). Essentially, that means that each domain was

accurately estimated using those indicators.

The measurement model. In CFA, a measurement model describes the nature of

the relationship between the latent domains and the manifest indicators measuring them.

In the current study, the model was comprised of three latent domains corresponding to

the three forms of social capital: bonding, bridging, and trust. Each of the latent domains

was measured using a minimum of three manifest indicators, displayed in Figure 4.2.

82
 Friends (V2)
E2

Bonding
Share confidences
(D2)
(V3) E3

Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) Diversity (V9)
E9

Group involvement E20

index (V20)

Worked with others E25

(V25)
Trust (D1)
Rate your
community(V31) E31

Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22

Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 4.2. Putnam’s Social Capital Theoretical Model28

The fit indices. The t-score for all parameters were significant at the p<.001 level

(please see Figure 4.3 below) and thus a review of the model fit statistics was provided to

28 This dissertation utilized Benter’s (1989) standard of noting manifest indicators with a“V” for indicator
(as shown in Figure 4.2), however, it uses D for domain as opposed to F for factor because the nature of
this research project focuses on domains . For example, the figure showed that Trust (D1) was
measured using manifest indicators V9, V120, and V25, the Bonding construct (D2) was measured
utilizing manifest indicators V2, V3, and V27, and so on. The measurement model posits that latent
domains covary. Therefore a covariance is estimated to connect each latent domain with every other
latent domain in the model. These are easily identifiable in the measurement model figure by a curved,
two-headed arrow connecting the D variables to one another. Stated another way, “a measurement
model is equivalent to a confirmatory factor analysis model in which each latent construct is allowed to
covary with every other latent construct” (Hatcher 1994: p. 415).

83
test Research Question one. Stated again, the first research question asks whether or not

the different theorists’ conceptualizations of social capital can be successfully modeled.

CFA provides a unique test of model fit on empirical data to answer this question.

Before reporting the findings from the confirmatory factor analysis and analyzing other

forms of fit, however, support needed to be obtained from the fit statistics for either

accepting the model as fitting or rejecting the model as not fitting the data. The first test

of this was the chi-square test (Hatcher 1994).

As shown in Table 4.3, the CFA for Putnam’s social capital model had a Hoelter’s

(1983) Critical N of 523. Hoelter’s Critical N is a fit statistic that focuses on the size of

the sample. A good benchmark is anything more than 200, with a Hoelter’s (1983)

Critical N of 523, the sample size was clearly large enough to give a chi-square statistic

(Byrne 2010).

The chi-square was significant at the p<0.0001 level. As stated before, for CFA

one actually wants the chi-square to not be significant because the null hypothesis is that

the model fits the data. The chi-square ratio of 4:1 was clearly above 2, but lower than

the CFA chi-square ratio of 6:129. Although a p-value larger than 0.05 or a chi-square

ratio of less than 2:1 would indicate a good fit, with a large sample size, the chi-square

test is sensitive to even trivial deviation from a perfect model. Therefore, alternative fit

statistics were needed to evaluate model fit.

29 A first run for Putnam produced two factors, but was based on the theoretical assumption by Knudsen et
al that memberships went along the lines of bonding and bridging using the idea of exclusive and
inclusive groups. The Cronbach’s Alpha for these scales were below .40, showing that they were not
reliable measures, and they both loaded on the same factor, showing clearly that they were measuring
the same abstract concept and not distinct. In the CFA run with the model based off of that first EFA,
there was a high chi-square ratio of 6 and lower indexes of fit, supporting the need to recalibrate the
membership indicators into one and build a different model.

84
 In many cases the sample size is so large that it is not mathematically possible to

have a non-significant chi-square (Hatcher 1994), which also in turn affects the chi-

square ratio. According to Hatcher (1994) “it has been shown that the chi-square/df ratio

is affected by sample size, and that the same model may display significantly different

ratios with small samples than with large samples…we advise that this criterion be used

only as a very rough rule of thumb, if at all, and be supplemented with other criteria that

are not affected by sample size” (290). Moreover, Bentler and Bonett (1980) state that

“[i]n large samples virtually any model tends to be rejected as inadequate, and in small

samples various competing models, if evaluated, might be equally acceptable” (588).

At this point, it would be easy to reject the Putnam social capital model and

simply deem it unfit. If one were to only use the chi-square statistic that would be the

verdict. However, based on my reading of the statistical literature (Bollen 1989; Bentler

and Bonett 1980; Hatcher 1994) and because of the sensitive nature of the chi-square in a

complex CFA, multiple goodness-of-fit statistics were considered.

A major benefit of the Bentler and Bollen indexes was that they are not as closely

tied to sample size (Bentler and Bonett 1980). All of these should be as close to 1 as

possible, indicating that the structure of the theoretical model fits the actual empirical

model, and in fact, as seen in the table below, they were all above 0.90. The comparative

fit index (CFI) was close to 1 at 0.9489, while the goodness-of-fit index (GFI) was even

closer at 0.9843. Moreover, Bentler’s and Bonett’s non-normed index was at 0.9234 and

Bentler’s and Bonett’s NFI was 0.9345.

Finally, one other important fit statistic was evaluated, the root mean square error

of approximation (RMSEA). This statistic is “scaled as a badness-of-fit index where a

85
value of zero indicates the best fit (Kline 2011: 205). It is not tied to sample size per se,

and is not based on a central chi-square approximation, but rather on a non-central chi-

square distribution. While useful in showing how well the theoretical model

approximates the actual model, it is not a test for “perfect” fit. Generally a RMSEA of

0.08 or lower is considered “good” (Kline 2011). The RMSEA for Putnam’s model was

0.0471, well below the 0.08 cut-off, and thus also showed support for a good model fit.

Table 4.3.Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the

CALIS Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis - Fit Statistics – Putnam Social Capital
Model
Fit Statistic
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.9843
Chi-Square 100.8339
Chi-Square DF 24
Pr > Chi-Square30 <.0001
RMSEA 0.0471
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index 0.9489
Benter’s & Bonett’s (1980) Non-normed Index 0.9234
Bentler & Bonett’s (1980) NFI 0.9345
Bollen (1988) Normed Index Rho1 0.9018
Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 0.9493
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 523
N 1445

Along with the fits statistics, the standardized residuals were consulted to see if

the projected model varied from the actual model greatly.31 Friends did have a large

standardized residual with diversity at 4.58 and shared confidences with the social trust

index at 4.08 (please see Table 4.3 below). It may be that bonding, bridging, and trust

work together and do not have distinct boundaries. For example, for this finding it makes

sense that respondents who had higher levels of trust would be more likely to share

confidences with others. It could be just as likely that one’s bonding social capital and/or

30 Note: The Chi-Square ratio was 4:1.

31 According to Hatcher (1994), residuals should be close to zero, which shows that the predicted model
fits the actual model. If using standardized residuals, then anything above 2 is considered high.
Mainly, these can be used to assess pathways within the model and ascertain paths that need to be added
or removed. The model with the least amount of high residuals was kept for each theorist. The findings
both supportive and high were reported here.

86
bridging social capital influence one another, perhaps having more bonding social capital

leads to less bridging or vice versa. Another possibility is that social capital begets more

social capital and thus, the more on one domain, the more likely you are to build on a

different dimension(s). These questions, however important, were not directly tested

here. However, they should be teased directly in future research.

Family contact was also associated with some very high standardized residuals,

4.58, -3.91, and -3.10, -2.96, and -2.8232. The largest standardized residual was between

worked with others and group involvement at 6.29. The group involvement index, along

with worked with others had some high residuals with friends and diversity (-3.91; -3.26).

The second largest residual was between rate your community and perception of

community trust at 5.02. According to Hatcher (1994), high residuals do not necessarily

mean that one should reject the model. Instead, he encourages researchers to use all data

available including other fit statistics to determine whether to accept or reject the model.

Furthermore, although there were some large residuals, the pattern of residuals in the

matrix also showed support for the model fit with the lower residuals being under 2.0.

While some of the standardized residuals for indicators in the Putnam model were

considered high, these indicators were not deleted because the measures were the best for

modeling the theory available in the dataset and other fit statistics (reported above)

showed support for them. The residual matrix was only one of many results used to

assess model fit and to choose the best theoretical model to data fit. Thus, based on the

32 With every confirmatory factor analysis or SEM that uses covariance matrixes a residual matrix and
normalized residual matrix are created. These numbers come from the predicted model matrix
produced while the analysis is done on the covariance matrix. If the theoretical model fits the actual
data, then the residuals will be near zero, anything over 2.0 is considered high for standardized
residuals. If they are low or close to zero, then the causal relationships between the indicators are being
accounted for correctly (Hatcher 1994).

87
EFA, and other CFA fit statistics listed above that showed a good fit for the Putnam

social capital model, the current model (see Figure 4.1) stood as the final specified

model. All future analysis for Putnam’s social capital was based off of this model.

Finally in answering Research Question one, finding a good model fit for the Putnam

social capital model provided support that Putnam’s theory of social capital can be

modeled empirically.

Putnam’s results. The covariances for the latent domains are reported here as

unstandardized estimates where the bonding domain covaried with the trust domain with

an estimate of 0.50, significant with a t-score of 13.06. Whereas the trust domain

covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.30 which was significant with a

t-score of 7.52; finally the bonding domain covaried with the bridging domain with an

estimate of 0.50 and a t-score of 12.55.

Due to the fact that the SEM model for Putnam had latent domains for which the

unit of analysis was abstract, the following analysis focused on the standardized Beta

results. As shown in Figure 4.3, all indicators significantly and positively loaded on the

bonding social capital domain. For respondents in this sample, a one standard deviation

increase in bonding social capital was associated with a 0.66 standard deviations increase

in friends, a 0.63 standard deviations increase in shared confidences, and a 0.20 standard

deviations increase in family contact. Therefore, as one’s bonding social capital

increased, a respondent would experience a statistically significant increase in their

friendships, the number of people they could share confidences with, and the number of

times they had contact with family in 2000. Of all indicators loading on the bonding

88
domain, family contact had the weakest loading. Furthermore, family contact had a weak

R-square of 0.04 where only four percent of the variance in family contact was explained

by bonding social capital. However, friends and shared confidences had R-squares of

0.43 and 0.40. Thus, 44 percent of the variance in friends and 40 percent of the variance

in shared confidences was explained by bonding social capital for respondents in the

sample.

Diversity, group involvement index, and worked with others also loaded

significantly on bridging social capital (t-scores going no lower than 10.04). Thus, a one

standard deviation increase in bridging social capital was correlated with a 0.72 standard

deviations increase in diversity, or the variation in one’s network ties, a corresponding

0.57 standard deviations increase in the group involvement index, and a 0.33 standard

deviations increase in worked with others. Clearly diversity had the highest loading and

was therefore the strongest indicator for bridging social capital for those in the sample.

This was followed by group involvement index, whereas, working with others had the

weakest return on an increase in bridging social capital. Not surprisingly, the R-squares

for each indicator followed the same pattern. Fifty-one percent of the variance in

diversity was explained by bridging social capital. Thirty-two percent of the variance in

the group involvement index for those in the sample was explained by bridging social

capital. Finally, only 12 percent of the variance in worked with others was explained by

bridging social capital.

Lastly, all indicators loaded positively and significantly on the dimension of trust

with t-scores ranging from 14.77 to 20.78. For a respondent the sample, a one standard

deviation increase in trust was associated with a 0.60 standard deviations increase in rate

89
your community, a 0.46 standard deviations increase in perception of community trust,

and a 0.71 standard deviations increase in the social trust index. The largest domain

loading was with the social trust index and the lowest with the perception of community

trust. The social trust index had the most variance explained by the trust dimension with

an R-square of 0.50 or 50 percent. While accounting for less variance, the perception of

community trust had 22 percent of variance explained by trust and 36 percent of the

variance in rate your community was explained by the trust dimension for

respondents.

(0.71, [18.70], Friends (V2)

E2
0.66)
Bonding (0.52,[18.25],
(D2) 0.63) Share confidences
(V3) E3
(4.01, [6.09], 0.20)
Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) (1.87, [18.38], Diversity (V9)
0.72) E9

(1.58, [16.11],
0.57) Group involvement E20
(0.15 [10.04] index (V20)
0.33)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1) (0.45, [18.46],
0.60) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.41, [14.77],
0.46)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.51, [20.78],
0.71)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 4.3. CFA Measurement Model for Putnam’s Social Capital (unstandardized beta,
[t-score], standardized Beta)33

33 Note: Model Fit Statistics: Chi-square=100.8339, 24 df (p<.0001), RMSEA=0.0471, CFI=0.9489, GFI =

0.9843. Adjusted R2 : V2 (0.43), V3 (0.40), V27 (0.04), V9 (0.51), V20 (0.32), V25 (0.11), V7 (0.50),

90
Coleman’s Social Capital Model

For the purposes of this project, the three forms of social capital theorized by

Coleman were used as latent domains and measures from the SCCBS were used using the

written works of Coleman, EFA, and face validity to choose indicators for each form of

social capital.

Exploratory Factor Analysis: Coleman

Responses to nine indicators for the domains E/O, I.C., and S.N., including group

involvement index, other church participation, club meetings, rate your community,

perception of community trust, social trust index, fictive kin, business owner, and

vacation home34, were run through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using squared

multiple correlations as prior communality estimates. The principal factor method was

utilized to extract factors; followed by a promax (oblique) rotation. As shown in Table

4.4 below, for the E/O domain all three indicators loaded positively and significantly

above 0.40. Group involvement index loaded at 0.58, other church participation at 0.45,

and club meetings at 0.50. On the I.C domain business owner (0.58) and vacation home

(0.50) loaded positively and significantly. However, fictive kin loaded just below the

0.40 cut-off at 0.39. Because fictive kin could potentially provide important information

both in terms of substantive information as well as structural information related to social

networks (Stack 1974), it was retained for further analysis. Finally, rate your community

(0.56), perception of community trust (0.51), and the social trust index (0.54) loaded

positively and significantly on the S.N. domain.

V22 (0.22), V31 (0.36). RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI = comparative fit
index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index.
34 All indicators came from the Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey from 2000.

91
Table 4.4. EFA for Coleman’s Three Forms of Social Capital- Rotated Factor
Pattern, Standardized Results
Not
I.C. S.N. E/O Sig.
Factor Factor Factor Factor
1 2 3 4
Expectation/Obligation
v15-group involvement index 17 -5 58 * -2
v16-other church participation 0 10 45 * -4
v21-club meetings -6 -2 50 * 5
Social Norms
v8-rate your community 7 56 * -1 -1
v9 -perception of community
trust -6 51 * -1 -3
v10-Social trust index 1 54 * 6 5
Information Channels
v12-fictivkin 39 ^ 1 9 -26
v27-business owner 58 * -2 0 -3
v28-vacation home 50 * 2 -1 3
*Significant loading at .40 or greater. Values marked with a ‘^’ are kept in model for
further analysis because theoretically sound. Printed values are standardized and multiplied
by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer.

A scree test supported three clear meaningful factors and a possible fourth based

on the loadings (see Figure 4.4). However, the loadings on the fourth factor were not

significant and the scree plot showed no support for retaining the fourth factor.

Moreover, the theory supported three latent constructs, therefore, only the first three

factors were retained.35 Using these criteria, three indicators loaded for E/O, SN, and IC

in a “simple”36 structure as seen above in Table 4.4.37

35 As stated earlier, an indicator was said to load on any given factor if it was .40 or higher (see Table 4.4).
36 A “simple” structure refers to the indicators only loading significantly on one factor, not across factors.
37 Prior to running the final EFA for Coleman’s three-pronged model, an EFA to assess the measures and
show support for their allotment was used as an extraction method. Three EFA’s were run before the
final one shown below to confirm the measures did load on one factor for each. Because each EFA
produced one-factor solutions, it was not necessary to perform a promax (oblique) rotation.

92
 ‚
1.75 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚ 1
1.50 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
1.25 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
E 1.00 ˆ
i ‚
g ‚
e ‚
n ‚
v 0.75 ˆ
a ‚
l ‚ 2
u ‚
e ‚
s 0.50 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
0.25 ˆ 3
‚
‚
‚
‚
0.00 ˆ 4 5
‚
‚
‚ 6 7
‚ 8
-0.25 ˆ 9
‚
Š----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Figure 4.4. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues, EFA, Coleman

Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Coleman

In order to test whether or not Coleman’s theoretical model for social capital

could be empirically measured, the results from the EFA and his theory were used to help

build the model shown in figure 4.2 below. This measurement model was then entered

into a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). CFA using the Proc CALIS procedure in SAS

(SAS Institute Inc. 1989) was used. The model tested used covariance structure with

93
multiple empirical indicators for the latent domains. The parameter estimates for each

pathway as well as the corresponding t-scores and standardized Betas are reported in

Figure 4.6. The t-scores were all above 2.0 and ranged between 5.42 and 20.85,

indicating that the factor loadings were significant (p< .001) and also provided support

for the convergent validity of the indicators, meaning that the domains were accurately

measured (Anderson and Gerbing 1988).

The measurement model. In CFA, a measurement model describes the nature of

the relationship between the latent domains and the manifest indicators included to

measure the latent factors. In the study, the model was comprised of three latent domains

corresponding to the three forms of social capital: expectation/obligation (E/O),

information channels (IC), and social norms (SN). Each of the latent domains was

measured using a minimum of three manifest indicators each (Hatcher 1994).

94
 Group involvement
index (V15) E15

Expectatio
n/Obligati Other church
participation (V16) E16
on (E/O)
D1 Club meetings (V21) E21

Fictivkin (V12) E12

Informatio
n Channel Business Owner
E27
(IC) D2 (V27)

Vacation Home E28

(V28)

Social
Norms Rate your
(SN) D3 community(V8) E8

Perception of
community trust(V9) E9

Social Trust E10

Index(V10)

Figure 4.5. Coleman’s Social Capital Measurement Model.

The fit indices. The t-scores for all parameters were significant at the p<.001 level

and thus a review of the model fit statistics was provided to answer Research Question

one. The measurement model was estimated using the maximum likelihood method.

The chi-square value for the model was statistically significant p<.0001 level. As stated

previously, the chi-square statistic may be used to test the null hypothesis that the model

fits the data. However, in practice, the statistic is sensitive to sample size as well as

departures from multivariate normality. While the Hoetler’s Critical N was at 612 for the

95
model (see Table 4.5), which was above 200 and supported that the chi-square statistic

was acceptable to use, it does not change the fact that because of the chi-square’s reaction

to a large sample size, using it can often result in the rejection of a model that fits.

Therefore, the model chi-square statistic (also called a chi-square ratio) was used as a

goodness of fit index, with smaller chi-square values (relative to the degrees of freedom)

as a better test of model fit (James, Mulaik, and Brett 1982; Joreskof and Sorbom 1989).

The chi-square ratio for this measurement model was 2.95, where 2 or lower is best.

Because the chi-square ratio was above 2, and due to the sensitive nature of the chi-

square, other goodness of fit indices were also consulted in assessing the fit for this

model.

Coleman’s CFA measurement model had goodness of fit values greater than .90

for the non-normed-fit index (NNFI) and the comparative fit index (CFI) as well as the

Bollen Normed Index Rhol, Bentler and Bonett’s (1980) NFI, and the Bollen (1988)

Non-normed Index Delta2, meaning that there was an acceptable fit, (see Table 4.4)

(Bentler and Bonett 1980; Bentler 1989). Moreover, there were very few high residuals

in the Coleman model. The covariance between other church participation and social

trust index had a standardized residual of 4.60, and also the covariance between the social

trust index and rate your community was high at -4.06. However, there were more

standardized residuals reporting at lower than 2.0, therefore supporting that the predicted

model shadowed closely the actual model. The average standardized residual for

Coleman’s social capital model was 1.03.

A few of the standardized residuals for indicators in the Coleman model were

high, however, these indicators were not deleted because the measures were the best for

96
modeling the theory available in the dataset and many other fit statistics (reported above)

showed support for them. The residual matrix was only one of many results used to

assess model fit and to choose the best theoretical model to fit the data. Thus, based on

the EFA, and the other CFA fit statistics listed above that showed a good fit for

Coleman’s social capital model, the current model (see Figure 4.3) was accepted as the

final specified model. All later analyses for Coleman were based on this model. Finally

in answering Research Question one, finding a good model fit for Coleman’s model

showed support for Coleman’s theory of social capital modeled empirically.

Table 4.5. CFA-Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the
CALIS Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis - Fit Statistics – Coleman’s Social
Capital Model
Fit Statistic
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.9899
Chi-Square 58.5610
Chi-Square DF 24
Pr > Chi-Square38 <.0001
RMSEA Estimate 0.0339
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index 0.9732
Benter’s & Bonett’s (1980) Non-normed Index 0.9597
Bentler & Bonett’s (1980) NFI 0.9558
Bollen (1988) Normed Index Rho1 0.9336
Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 0.9734
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 783
N 1257

Coleman’s results. The covariances for the latent domains are reported here as

unstandardized estimates where the expectations/obligations (E/O) domain covaried with

the information channel (IC) domain with an estimate of 0.54, significant with a t-score

of 13.56. Whereas the E/O domain covaried with the social norms (SN) domain with an

38 Note: This model had a chi-square ratio of 2.4:1.

97
estimate of 0.22 which was significant with a t-score of 5.50; finally the IC domain

covaried with the SN domain with an estimate of 0.32 and a t-score of 7.12.

The following figures show Coleman’s social capital model across racial groups.

As shown below in Figure 4.6, all indicators significantly loaded on the E/O dimension.

Thus we can say for this sample, a one standard deviation increase in E/O social capital

was associated with a 0.86 standard deviations increase in the group involvement index, a

0.42 standard deviations increase in other church participation, and a 0.47 standard

deviations increase in club meetings. Of all indicators loading on E/O social capital,

other church participation and club meetings both loaded fairly strongly, although the

former was the weakest loading for E/O social capital. The group involvement index,

however, had a very strong loading at 0.86 for the sample.

As with Putnam, the R-square statistic was used to assess how well the model and

its parts predicted for the sample. Only 18 percent of the variation in other church

participation was explained by E/O social capital. However, 22 percent of the variation

in club meetings and 74 percent of the variation in group involvement index was

explained by E/O social capital, which were fairly strong and very strong results for R-

square. For respondents in the sample, it was clear that E/O social capital was a strong

predictor for group involvement.

All indicators loaded at a statistically significant level for the information channel

(IC) dimension. Here a one standard deviation increase in IC was associated with a 0.19

standard deviations increase in fictive kin, a 0.63 standard deviations increase in business

owner, and a 0.61 standard deviations increase in vacation home. The strongest loadings

were business owner and vacation home. Interestingly fictive kin had a very weak

98
loading and using R-square the IC accounted for only four percent of the variation in

fictive kin. In contrast, 40 percent of the variation in business owner and 37 percent of

the variation in vacation home was explained by the IC for the sample. These findings

suggest that fictive kin was important to the context of IC in 2000.

Vacation home had 37 percent and business owner had 40 percent of its variance

explained by IC social capital, however, only four percent of the variance in fictive kin

was explained by IC social capital. The latter finding suggests that for this sample, IC

social capital had less to do with the people one sees as “family” and more to do with ties

to people with specific resources or knowledge (e.g. owning one’s own business).

All indicators for the SN social capital dimension loaded significantly. For the

sample, a one standard deviation increase in SN social capital was correlated with a 0.66

increase in rate your community, a 0.46 increase in the perception of community trust,

and a 0.64 increase in the social trust index. Therefore, for the sample, increasing SN

social capital meant that how they rate their community, how they perceive others’

willingness to conserve for the greater good, and their overall trust in others increased.

This was strongest for rate your community, where 43 percent of the variance was

explained by SN social capital. The social trust index followed closely with 41 percent

of the variance explained by SN social capital. Conversely perception of community trust

had the least amount of variance explained by the SN dimension, or 21 percent.

99
 Group involvement
E15
(2.42, [20.85],0.86 ) index (V15)

Expectatio (0.21,[12.73], 0.42) Other church

n/Obligati
participation (V16) E16
on (E/O)
D1 (5.74, [14.02], 0.47) Club meetings (V21) E21

(0.74, [5.42], 0.19) Fictivkin (V12) E12

Informatio
(0.31, [16.29], 0.63)
n Channel Business Owner
E27
(IC) D2 (V27)

(0.30, [15.95], 0.61) Vacation Home E28

(V28)

Social
(0.49,[17.16], 0.66) Rate your
Norms
(SN) D3 community(V8) E8
(0.40,[13.22], 0.46 )
Perception of
community trust(V9) E9

(0.46,[16.91], 0.64)
Social Trust E10
Index(V10)

Figure 4.6. CFA Measurement Model for Coleman’s Social Capital (unstandardized beta,
[t-score], standardized Beta)39

Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model

For Bourdieu, social capital can be thought of as social resources that exist in the

social ties we have:

39 Note: Model Fit Statistics: Chi-square = 58.5610, 24 df (p<.0001), RMSEA = 0.0339, CFI = 0.9732,
GFI = 0.9899. Adjusted R2 : V8 (0.43), V9 (0.21), V10 (0.41), V12 (0.04), V15 (0.74), V16 (0.18),
V21 (0.22), V27 (0.40), V28 (0.37). RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation; CFI =
comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index.

100
 [s]ocial capital is the sum of resources, actual or virtual, that accrue to an
individual or a group by virtue of possessing a durable network of more or less
institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (Bourdieu
and Wacquant, 1992: 119).

In the absence of other forms of capital well-known to Bourdieu’s social inequality

theory, the following analysis uses the concept of field to add context to Bourdieu’s

social capital model. It was difficult to come to a final measurement model for

Bourdieu’s social capital40. Bourdieu’s concepts have been heralded as being

sophisticated, rich, and also hard to measure (Silva and Edwards 2007). EFA was used

initially on the measures to explore the loadings and see which measures hung together,

or on which Field they loaded. EFA was used to support domains or fields, of religious,

with three indicators, community with three indicators, and political with four indicators.

Altogether they comprised 10 measures and I explored whether they loaded on the field

that made sense theoretically.

Exploratory Factor Analysis: Bourdieu

Due to the fact that most studies found in a review of the literature concentrated

on cultural capital, as well as being qualitative in method, it was deemed appropriate to

approach Bourdieu’s social capital model from an exploratory standpoint (Bourdieu and

Wacquant 1992, 1999; Lareau 2000; Lamont and Lareau 1988; Lamont 2012). This was

where having a dataset created specifically to measure social capital was very useful.

The EFA loadings (see Table 4.6) and scree plot (see Figure 4.7) showed that there were

40 One limitation for the Bourdieu model in this project was that a pre-existing dataset was used (SCCBS).

101
three significant factors with a minimum of three indicators loading discreetly on three

domains: the religious field, community field, and political field.

As opposed to Putnam and Coleman, where the scree plot and factor loadings

were needed to “see” the underlying latent structure,” for Bourdieu there was a clear

break in the scree plot showing three domains. Supporting the scree finding, the loadings

shown in Table 4.7 present a “simple” structure and aside from one that loads slightly

under 0.40 (neighborhood association) all load positively, significantly, and distinctly on

three domains.

For the religious field, volunteer religious loaded at 0.66, religious membership

loaded at 0.63 and religious groups loaded at 0.46. The first two indicators were

especially high loadings for this domain. All three indicators were measuring different

aspects of religious interaction, membership, participation, and whether one was located

spatially in the religious field. It was harder to “see” the resources within each measure,

thus it was assumed that volunteering, being a member of a religion, and being a part of

religious groups also meant that one had, accrued and could access various social

resources via these connections.

102
 1.50 ˆ 1
‚
‚
‚
‚
‚
1.25 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
‚
1.00 ˆ 2
‚
‚
‚
E ‚
i ‚
g 0.75 ˆ
e ‚
n ‚
v ‚
a ‚
l ‚
u 0.50 ˆ 3
e ‚
s ‚
‚
‚
‚
0.25 ˆ
‚
‚
‚
‚
‚
0.00 ˆ 4
‚ 5
‚ 6
‚ 7
‚ 8
‚ 9
-0.25 ˆ 0
Š--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Number

Figure 4.7. Scree Plot of Eigenvalues, EFA, Bourdieu

Friend contact (0.65), coworker contact (0.55), and hanging with friends (0.62)

all loaded significantly and positively on the community domain. These indicators

measured different aspects of one’s personal community, the people and connections that

one would spend time with and share resources. The first and last focusing on spending

time and being connected to one’s friends and the second indicator including time spent

with ties at work.

103
 Finally, rally (0.52), public interest groups (0.44), petition (0.44), and

neighborhood association (0.37) loaded on the political domain. The only one to load

below 0.40 was neighborhood association. Again, it was assumed that by being

connected in these different ways and through these measures that there was with each an

opportunity to create, maintain and use the social resources that develop within the tie

and are held by the actors. This assumption is in line with Bourdieu’s definition of social

capital being social resources located in the ties between actors.

Table 4.6. EFA for Bourdieu’s Social Capital - Rotated Factor

Pattern, Standardized Loadings41
Religious Political
Field Community Field NS
(F1) Field (F2) (F3) (F4)
Religious Field
V2-volunteer religious 66 * 6 5 1
V19-religious -6 -1 -2
membership 63 *
V22-group religious 46 * 0 -3 12
Community Field
V42-friend contact -2 65 * 3 -1
V43-coworker contact -2 55 * 3 0
V44-hanging with friends 3 62 * -6 0
Political Field
V16-rally 3 -2 52 * 3
V27-public interest 7 1 44 * 9
V15-petition -5 3 44 * -7
V5-neighborhood group -3 -1 37 ^ -3

41 *Printed values were multiplied by 100 and rounded to the nearest integer.
Values greater than 0.4 were flagged by an ‘*’; values that were used in further
analysis but which did not load were flagged by a’^’.

104
Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Bourdieu

As with both Putnam and Coleman, confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was used

to answer the first research question of whether or not Bourdieu’s social capital model

can be empirically modeled using SEM. The factors presented below were based on the

fields of Religion (D1), Community (D2), and Politics (D3).

The measurement model. Bourdieu’s measurement model, shown in Figure 4.8

below, was based on his definition of social capital combined with his notion of field and

the results from the EFA above. This measurement model was then entered into a

confirmatory factor analysis. CFA using the Proc CALIS procedure in SAS (SAS

Institute Inc. 1989) was used. The model used covariance structure with multiple

empirical indicators for the latent domains. The parameter estimates for each pathway as

well as the corresponding t-scores and standardized Betas are reported in Figure 4.6. The

t-scores were all above 2.0 and ranged between 10.64 and 25.29, indicating that the

loadings were significant (p< .001) Bourdieu’s concept of social capital related to the

idea that actors’ social capital was embodied in them and their social position. He saw

social capital as “more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and

recognition…[as well as] to membership in a group” (1997: 51). Thus, membership in

organizations that were tied to specific social structures was used to operationalize the

three social structural fields below: Religion, Community, and Political.

105
 Volunteer Religious
(V2) E2

Religious Religious
Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)

Rally (V16)
E16

Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27

Petition (V15)
E15

Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 4.8. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Measurement Model.

The fit indices. The t-scores for all parameters were significant at the p<.001 level

and thus a review of the model fit statistics was provided to answer Research Question

one (see Bourdieu’s results below). The measurement model was estimated using the

maximum likelihood method. The chi-square value for the model was statistically

significant p<.0001 level. As stated previously, the chi-square statistic may be used to

test the null hypothesis that the model fits the data. However, in practice, the statistic is

106
sensitive to sample size as well as to departures from multivariate normality. While the

Hoetler’s Critical N was at 1076 for the model (see Table 4.7), which was above 200 and

supported that the chi-square statistic was acceptable to use, it does not change the fact

that because of the chi-square’s reaction to a large sample size, using it can often result in

the rejection of a model that fits. Therefore, the chi-square ratio was used (James,

Mulaik, and Brett 1982; Joreskof and Sorbom 1989). The chi-square ratio for this model

was close to 2:1 at 2.3:1.

Because the chi-square ratio was slightly above 2, and due to the sensitive nature

of the chi-square, other goodness of fit indices were also consulted in assessing the fit for

this model. Bourdieu’s CFA measurement model had goodness of fit values close to 1

for the non-normed-fit index (NNFI) (0.9737) and the comparative fit index (CFI)

(0.9813) as well as the Bollen Normed Index Rhol (0.9542), Bentler and Bonett’s (1980)

NFI (0.9674), and the Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 (0.9814), meaning that

there was an acceptable fit, please see Table 4.7 (Bentler and Bonett 1980; Bentler 1989).

There were some high residuals in this model. The covariance between coworker

contact and religious membership had the highest standardized residual of -3.48, and also

the covariance between the religious membership and friend contact was high at -3.22.

However, there were many standardized residuals reporting at lower than two, some

under 1. These supported the argument that the predicted model was close to the actual

model (see Table 4.6). The average standardized residual for Bourdieu’s social capital

model was 1.05.

Some of the standardized residuals for indicators in the Bourdieu model were

high, however, as with the previous two theorists, these indicators were not deleted

107
because the measures were the best available for modeling the theory in the dataset and

many other fit statistics (reported above) showed support for them. The residual matrix

was only one of many results used to assess model fit and to choose the best theoretical

model to data fit. Thus, based on the EFA, and other CFA fit statistics listed above that

showed a good fit for Bourdieu’s social capital model, consequently the current model

(see Figure 4.5) was accepted as the final specified model. All analysis for Bourdieu in

this study was based on this model. Finally in answering Research Question one, finding

a good model fit for Bourdieu’s model showed support for his theory of social capital

modeled empirically.

Table 4.7. CFA-Covariance Structure Analysis: Maximum Likelihood Estimation for the
CALIS Procedure Confirmatory Factor Analysis - Fit Statistics –Bourdieu’s Social
Capital Model
Fit Statistic
Goodness of Fit Index (GFI) 0.9915
Chi-Square 73.1932
Chi-Square DF 32
Pr > Chi-Square42 <.0001
RMSEA Estimate 0.0275
Bentler’s Comparative Fit Index 0.9813
Benter’s & Bonett’s (1980) Non-normed Index 0.9737
Bentler & Bonett’s (1980) NFI 0.9674
Bollen (1988) Normed Index Rho1 0.9542
Bollen (1988) Non-normed Index Delta2 0.9814
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 1076
N 1704

Bourdieu’s results. The covariances for the latent fields are reported here as

unstandardized estimates where the religious domain covaried with the community

domain with an estimate of 0.12, significant with a t-score of 3.30. Whereas the religious

42 Note: The Chi-Square Ratio was 2.3:1 for Bourdieu’s social capital confirmatory factor analysis model
using a covariance structure analysis with maximum likelihood estimation for the CALIS procedure in
SAS.

108
domain covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.35 which was significant

with a t-score of 10.26; finally the community domain covaried with the political domain

with an estimate of 0.20 and a t-score of 5.51.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for the sample with t-scores

ranging from 10.64 to 25.29. The results indicate that a one standard deviation increase

in the religious field was associated with a 0.88 standard deviations increase in volunteer

religious, a 0.61 standard deviations increase in religious membership, and a 0.34

standard deviations increase in religious groups. Therefore, in 2000, we can say that as

the religious social capital increased, there was a corresponding increase in volunteering

in religious activities for those in the sample; they also had higher loadings for religious

membership and for participation in religious groups. The strongest Beta was for

volunteer religious, and the weakest loading was on religious groups. In fact, only 12

percent of the variation in religious groups was explained by the religious field.

Conversely, 77 percent of the variation in volunteer religious, and 37 percent of the

variation in religious membership was explained by religious social capital.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for the sample on the

community field. Here a one standard deviation increase in the community field was

associated with a 0.77 standard deviations increase in friend contact, a 0.55 standard

deviations increase in coworker contact, and a 0.63 standard deviations increase in

hanging with friends. The strongest loading for this group along the community

dimension was friend contact, followed closely by hanging with friends, and a fairly

strong showing by coworker contact. In fact, 59 percent of the variation found in friend

109
contact, 30 percent of the variation in coworker contact, and 40 percent of the variation

in hanging with friends was explained by community social capital.

Finally, all the indicators for political field loaded positively and significantly for

respondents in 2000. A one standard deviation increase in the political dimension was

associated with a 0.62 standard deviations increase in rally, a 0.54 standard deviations

increase in public interest groups, a 0.41 standard deviations increase in petition, and a

0.33 standard deviations increase in neighborhood association. Thus, we can say in

2000, respondents whose political social capital increased spent more time on rallies, in

public interest groups, signing petitions, and working on their neighborhoods. The

strongest loading for political social capital was rally. Not surprisingly, the R-square for

rally was fairly strong at 0.39. Therefore, 39 percent of the variation seen in rally was

explained by a respondent’s political social capital. Whereas 29 percent of the variation

in public interest groups, 17 percent of the variation in petition, and 11 percent of the

variation in neighborhood associations was explained by the political field.

110
 (0.42,[23.14], 0.88) Volunteer Religious
(V2) E2

Religious (0.29,[19.26], 0.61) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(0.13,[12.33],-0.34) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.82,[25.29],0.77)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(8.94,[19.73],0.55) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(11.42,[22.02],0.63 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.24,[18.67],0.62 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.16,[16.85],0.54)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.20,[13.28],0.41)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.14, [10.64],0.33)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 4.9. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Measurement Model, (unstandardized beta, [t-
scores], unstandardized Beta).43

43 Note: Model Fit Statistics: Chi-square = 73.1932, 32 df (p<.0001), RMSEA = 0.0275, CFI = 0.9813,
GFI = 0.9915. Adjusted R2 : V2 (0.77), V19 (0.37), V22 (0.12), V42 (0.59), V43 (0.30), V44 (0.40),
V16 (0.39), V27 (0.29), V15 (0.17), V5 (0.11). RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation;
CFI = comparative fit index; GFI = goodness-of-fit index.

111
 CHAPTER V

SOCIAL CAPITAL ASSOCIATED WITH CLASS, RACE, AND GENDER

In order to address the proposed hypotheses, each model was run using the multi-

sample SEM method. For example, the first hypothesis predicted social capital would

vary according to social class. As a result, the model was run across lower, middle and

upper class groups. The second hypothesis expected the structure of social capital to

operate differently across White and Non-White racial groups. The final hypothesis

tested below proposed that the structure of social capital would operate differently for

men versus women. In conducting these tests, the current chapter presents the results for

Putnam, Coleman, and Bourdieu’s social capital models respectively across social class,

race, and gender groups. Standardized Betas were reported for each individual model,

while the unstandardized betas were used to compare across models (groups). The

convergence criterion was satisfied for all models reported (Hatcher 1994).

Putnam’s Social Capital Model

Putnam’s social capital model was derived mainly from his work in Bowling

Alone (2000) where he attempted to understand why there was a decrease in social ties

and interactions among Americans. While the following does not constitute an

exhaustive test, it did allow for the analysis of Putnam’s social capital model with

112
bonding, bridging, and trust dimensions among important socio-demographic statuses

(class, race and gender).

Putnam’s Model: Social Class

Two models were compared using Putnam’s social capital model, one that

allowed all coefficients to freely estimate and another that constrained all coefficients to

be the same. The likelihood ratio (LR) test44 in Table 5.1 showed that for Putnam’s

social capital model, social capital varied by income. What that means was that there

were meaningful differences in the structure of social capital by income groups45.

Moreover, the overall fit for the Putnam social capital model was better when the

parameter estimates were allowed to freely estimate with a chi-square ratio of 2.2:1.

However, most fit indexes ranged between 0.80 and 0.90. The CFI (0.8967) and NNFI

(0.8937) were both close to 0.90. The only index falling above 0.90 at 0.9620 was the

GFI. The RMSEA and SRMR (both looking at how well the data fit the theory) were at

0.05 and 0.06 respectively, well below 0.8 (Bollen 1989). There was enough evidence

with the chi-square ratio, GFI, RMSEA, and SRMSR to accept the model. Given the

evidence, we accept the unconstrained model as being better than the constrained. Thus,

44
The LR statistic is also known as a chi-square difference statistic and allows a researcher to do a statistic
of significance between models (Bollen 1989). It can be written as: LR = (N – 1) Fr – (N - 1)Fu
= (N-1) (Fr – Fu)
45
A standard .05 level of significance was used as a measure of statistical significance. If the LR statistic
was significant, then we accepted the more complex (freely estimated) model over the simpler
(constrained) model. Worded another way, if it was significantly different then the LR was significant
and thus worth losing for example 18 degree of freedom because there were significant differences
found.

113
the following presents results of an analysis that examined the multi-sample

unconstrained model for Putnam across lower, middle and upper social class groups.46

Other models were considered (see footnote three below), specifically models

where different groups were constrained and one left free to estimate. For example, one

run had the lower and upper classes constrained to estimate the same (by giving the path

the same name for both groups), but the middle class was allowed to estimate freely. It

was determined that these models did not add any important information to the analysis

and in the interest of parsimony where there were significant socio-demographic group

differences, the unconstrained model was reported. The unconstrained model is actually

the more complex model because all groups (e.g. lower, middle and upper class) are

allowed to estimate freely, thus it takes up more degrees of freedom and is more

complicated than the model where they are all assumed to work the same, or constrained.

Thus, when the LR test was statistically significant, the loss of degrees of freedom was

considered a worthy loss and the more complex model showing those differences was

reported. Where there was no significant difference, the findings for the original model

in chapter four were supported (please see chapter four for those results).

46
Three other constrained models were run as well. Here two groups at a time were constrained and one
allowed to freely estimate. Because there were significant differences found, the model showing the
differences between all groups was reported.

114
 Table 5.1 Fit Statistics for Putnam's Social Capital Model Using
Multi-Sample SEM Social Class in the Sample, 2000.
*Constrained Unconstrained
All Free
chi-square 263.8587 234.6390
chi-square DF 114 105
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0000
Chi-Square Ratio 2.3146 2.2347
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9575 0.9620
Bentler's CFI 0.8785 0.8967
Bentler & Bonett's NFI (1980) 0.8032 0.8278
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta 2 (1988) 0.8779 0.8937
Hoelter's (1983), Critical N 701 732
RMSEA 0.0547 0.0530
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0806 0.0679
subtraction of chi-square/DF 29.2197 9
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0006
Total N 1322
Lower 466
Middle 263
Upper 593

Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

The trust domain covaried with the bonding domain with an estimate of 0.47, significant

with a t-score of 11.45. Whereas the trust domain covaried with the bridging domain

with an estimate of 0.25 which was significant with a t-score of 5.74; finally the bonding

domain covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.45 and a t-score of

10.32.

The following figures show Putnam’s social capital model across social class

groups. For model 1, the lower class, all indicators significantly loaded on the bonding

social capital dimension (t-statistics no lower than 5.06). For those in the sample who

were lower class, one standard deviation increase in bonding social capital was associated

with a 0.67 standard deviations increase in friends, a 0.63 standard deviations increase in

115
shared confidences, and a 0.19 standard deviations increase in family contact. Of all

variables loading on bonding social capital domain, family contact had the weakest

loading. More than that family contact had an R-square of 0.04 which was low. This

suggests that four percent of the variance in family contact was explained by bonding

social capital. However, friends and shared confidences had R-squares of 0.44 and 0.40

which for social science is considered fairly strong. Thus, 44 percent of the variance in

friends was explained by bonding social capital domain and 40 percent of the variance in

shared confidences was explained by bonding social capital domain for the lower social

class group in the sample. These findings are consistent with Putnam’s (2000) theoretical

expectation that there is a positive correlation between close friends, more intense

relationships and social situations where exclusionary behavior leads to bonding social

capital.

Diversity, group involvement index, and worked with others also loaded

significantly on bridging social capital (t-statistics going no lower than 7.97). Thus, a

one standard deviation increase in bridging social capital was correlated with a 0.70

standard deviations increase in diversity, or the variation in one’s network ties, a

corresponding 0.55 standard deviations increase in the group involvement index, and a

0.31 standard deviations increase in worked with others. Clearly diversity had the

strongest loading and was therefore the strongest indicator for bridging social capital for

those in the sample from a lower social class. This was followed by group involvement

index, whereas, working with others had the weakest relationship on an increase in

bridging social capital. Not surprisingly, the R-squares for each indicator followed the

same pattern. Forty-nine percent of the variance in diversity was explained by bridging

116
social capital. Thirty percent of the variance in the group involvement index for those in

the sample in the lower social class was explained by bridging social capital. Finally,

only 10 percent of the variance in worked with others was explained by bridging social

capital.

(0.73, [16.49], Friends (V2)

E2
0.67)

Bonding (0.51,[15.88],
Share confidences
(D2) 0.63)
(V3) E3
(3.90, [5.06], 0.19)
Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) (1.83, [15.56], Diversity (V9)
0.70) E9

(1.52, [13.24],
0.55) Group involvement E20
(0.14, [7.97], index (V20)
0.31)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1) (0.46, [16.68],
0.61) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.45, [13.78],
0.49)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.51, [18.71],
0.71)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 5.1 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Lower Social Class
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes for Lower Class: SRMSR
0.07, GFI 0.96, NFI 0.84

Finally, all indicators loaded significantly on the dimension of trust with the

lowest t-statistic at 13.78 and the highest at 18.71. For those in the lower class, a one

standard deviation increase in trust corresponded to a 0.61 standard deviations increase in

117
rate your community, a 0.49 standard deviations increase in perception of community

trust, and a 0.71 standard deviations increase in the social trust index. The largest

increase was with the social trust index and the lowest with the perception of community

trust. The social trust index had the most variance explained by the trust dimension with

an R-square of 0.50 or 50 percent. While accounting for less variance, the perception of

community trust had 24 percent of variance explained by trust and 37 percent of the

variance in rate your community was explained by the trust dimension for respondents in

a lower social class. The lowest yield for perception of community trust may have been

due to the fact that most of the sample perceived their community in a positive light, it

may also have indicated that trust is related to one’s perception of their community only

so much.

When looking at the middle class from the SCCBS with Putnam’s social capital

model, covariances were the same as with the lower class model: The trust domain

covaried with the bonding domain with an estimate of 0.4747, significant with a t-score of

11.45; the trust domain covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.25 which

was significant with a t-score of 5.74; and finally the bonding domain covaried with the

bridging domain with an estimate of 0.45 and a t-score of 10.32.

Both the bridging and trust factorial dimensions had indicators with loadings that

were statistically significant. However, for the bonding domain, friends and share

confidences were significant, whereas family contact with a t-score of 1.33 was not.

Therefore, for the middle class in this sample, a one standard deviation increase in

bonding social capital was associated with a 0.62 standard deviations increase in friends

and a 0.57 standard deviations increase in shared confidences. The R-square for friends
47
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

118
was 0.38 and for shared confidences it was 0.33. Thus, we can say that bonding social

capital explained 38 percent of the variance in friends, while bonding social capital

among the middle class explained 33 percent of the variance in shared confidences. That

the family contact loading was not statistically significant was surprising because

according to Putnam’s (2000) theory, bonding social capital comes from those ties where

respondents would have spent more time and energy and contact with, in other words,

family. Even with a weak finding, it was expected to be statistically significant. Thus,

we can say that for the middle class group, family contact was not a meaningful indicator

of one’s bonding social capital.

Those in the middle class had an increase of 0.65 standard deviations in diversity,

a 0.55 standard deviations increase in the group involvement index, and a 0.36 standard

deviations increase in worked with others for a one standard deviation in bridging social

capital. As with the lower class, the strongest indicator for bridging social capital was in

the diversity of friendships. However, 42 percent of the variation in diversity and 30

percent of the variation in the group involvement index was explained by bridging social

capital. Only 13 percent of the variation in worked with others was explained by bridging

social capital.

A one standard deviation increase in trust brought about 0.52 standard deviations

increase in rate your community, a 0.27 standard deviations increase in perception of

community trust, and a 0.68 standard deviations increase in the social trust index. Stated

another way, rate your community correlated with the domain of trust at 0.27, this was a

somewhat weak correlation, closer to zero than one, but it was positive and significant.

Thus as one’s bonding domain increased, so did their rating of the community in which

119
they lived. For the social trust index, which had the strongest correlation with the trust

domain, there was a positive and significant correlation of 0.68.

The R-squares showed that for those from the middle class, 50 percent of the

variance in the social trust index, 37 percent of the variance in rate your community, and

24 percent of the variation in perception of community trust was explained by the trust

dimension. Therefore, not only did all three indicators load, but the trust dimension was

a fairly strong predictor for each one, although the index being the strongest based on the

standardized Beta.

(0.64, [8.41], Friends (V2)

0.62) E2
Bonding
(0.45, [7.74], Share confidences
(D2)
0.57) (V3)
E3
(2.14, [1.33], 0.11)NS
Family contact (V27)
E27

Bridging
(D3) (1.60, [8.72], Diversity (V9)
0.65) E9
(1.50, [7.35], 0.55)
Group involvement E20
index (V20)
(0.17, [4.63], 0.36)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1)
(0.36, [6.91], 0.52) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.22, [3.39], 0.27)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.46, [9.62], 0.68)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 5.2 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Middle Social Class
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes Middle Class: SRMSR
0.07, GFI 0.96, NFI 0.79

120
 As shown above, the model worked along similar lines to that of the lower class

in terms of direction, however, the unstandardized estimates, with the exception of

worked with others (0.17 slightly stronger than 0.14), were weaker. Also, the t-statistics

for the middle class were weaker without exception. Based on these findings, we can

argue that the lower class had stronger indicators for social capital than the middle class

for this sample.

Furthermore, for the middle class, visiting one’s family had no bearing on

bonding social capital whatsoever. In terms of bonding social capital however, it was

expected that family would be an important component and that it would be a part of

one’s bonding social capital. This was expected given the idea these were ties that one

would spend more time and effort on maintaining, creating stronger and more intense

relationships which exclude others who are not family members (Putnam 2000). It would

be interesting to see if this finding holds if applied to a different sample, and with other

methods. However, the current results indicate that for the middle class, it was their

friends and people they shared confidences with that mattered most.

When one reviews the upper class model, as with the lower and middle class

models, the trust domain covaried with the bonding domain with an estimate of 0.4748,

significant with a t-score of 11.45; the trust domain covaried with the bridging domain

with an estimate of 0.25 which was significant with a t-score of 5.74; and finally the

bonding domain covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.45 and a t-score

of 10.32.

The indicators for the bonding domain, friends, share confidences, and family

contact loaded significantly for the upper class model. Therefore, a one standard
48
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

121
deviation increase in bonding social capital domain was correlated with a 0.67 standard

deviations increase in friends and a 0.63 standard deviations increase in shared

confidences, and a 0.19 standard deviations increase in family contact. The R-square for

friends was 0.44, for shared confidences it was 0.40, and for family contact it was 0.04.

Thus, the bonding social capital domain explained 44 percent of the variance in friends,

while the bonding social capital domain among the upper class explained 40 percent of

the variance in shared confidences, and only four percent of the variance in family

contact was explained by the bonding domain.

On the bridging domain, the upper class had an increase of 0.70 standard

deviations in diversity, a 0.55 standard deviations increase in the group involvement

index, and a 0.31 standard deviations increase in worked with others for a one standard

deviation increase in bridging social capital domain. As with the lower and middle

classes, the strongest indicator for bridging social capital was in the diversity of

friendships. Stated in a different way, the diversity of one’s friendships correlated with

the bridging domain fairly strongly at 0.70. Forty-nine percent of the variation in

diversity and 30 percent of the variation in the group involvement index was explained by

bridging social capital domain. Only 10 percent of the variation in worked with others

was explained by bridging social capital domain. The last was three percent smaller than

that for the middle class.

The percent of variance explained for worked with others was surprising as some

researchers have emphasized the need to include action measures of social capital along

with structural or network variables (see Demant and Jarvinen 2011). For example,

Norris and Inglehart (2006) argue that social capital “needs to gauge activism as well as

122
formal membership” (80). However, the findings here suggest that working with others

in one’s community toward a common goal may not be a part of bridging social capital

for those in the middle and upper classes for this sample.

For the upper class, all indicators loaded significantly on the dimension of trust

with the lowest t-score at 13.78 and the highest at 18.71. For those in the upper class, a

one standard deviation increase in trust corresponded to a 0.61 standard deviations

increase in rate your community, a 0.49 standard deviations increase in perception of

community trust, and a 0.71 standard deviations increase in the social trust index. As

with the lower class, the largest increase was with the social trust index and the lowest

with the perception of community trust. The social trust index had the most variance

explained by the trust dimension with an R-square of 0.50 or 50 percent. While

accounting for less variance, the perception of community trust had 24 percent of

variance explained by trust and 37 percent of the variance in rate your community was

explained by the trust dimension for respondents in a lower social class. Again, the

lowest yield for perception of community trust may have been related to the fact that most

of the sample perceived their community in a positive light, it may also have indicated

that trust is associated with one’s perception of their community only so much.

Finally, there were no real differences in strength or significance between the

lower class and upper class with regard to the dimensions of bonding and bridging social

capital or trust.49 Interestingly, the only significant differences lay with the middle class.

Not only was the structure or loadings of social capital diminished for the middle class,

the tests of significance were also, to the point that family contact was not at all

significant under the bonding social capital factor. It can be argued that there was little
49
The R-squares for the upper class were also identical to those of those in the lower class.

123
difference between class groups using Putnam’s model, and that therefore, the original

results from chapter four should stand regardless of the LR test being significant.

However, the finding, though small, shows a potentially important difference for the

middle class and challenges a basic assumption for the role of the family in our society.

The results presented here are not conclusive and it would make sense to do further

testing using various methods and other samples to confirm and support the results found

in this model. Also, the N for the middle class group was lower at 263 than either that of

the lower or upper social class groups (see Table 5.1), therefore, this finding was

potentially associated with a loss of statistical power due to a smaller sample size

(Allison 1999; Bollen 1989).

124
 (0.73, [16.49], Friends (V2)
E2
0.67)

Bonding (0.51,[15.88],
Share confidences
(D2) 0.63)
(V3) E3
(3.91, [5.06], 0.19)
Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) (1.83, [15.56], Diversity (V9)
0.70) E9

(1.52, [13.24],
0.55) Group involvement E20
(0.14, [7.97], index (V20)
0.31)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1) (0.46, [16.68],
0.61) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.45, [13.78],
0.49)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.51, [18.71],
0.71)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 5.3 Putnam’s Social Capital Model for Upper Social Class (unstandardized b, [t-
statistic], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes Upper Class: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.96, NFI 0.84

Putnam’s Model: Race

Race was divided into two categories, White and Non-white. The hypothesis

tested here was that race would be significant for Putnam’s model of social capital. In

order to test this hypothesis, as with social class, the LR test was used to compare the

constrained model with the unconstrained model which allows all factor loadings to be

different for Whites and Non-Whites. As shown below in Table 5.2, that test was highly

significant, supporting the claim that there were statistically significant differences in the

125
structure of social capital for Whites and Non-whites. Because the test supports the

hypothesis, the unconstrained or free model is reported which shows how social capital

varies when using Putnam’s social capital model. This model was considered more

complex than the constrained, but because the test was significant it was worth losing 9

degrees of freedom to understand the difference in the structure of social capital for racial

groups. The chi-square ratio for this model was 2.4:1, which was slightly higher than 2.0,

and most indexes reported at 0.90 or above. Both the RMSEA and SRMSR were less

than .05 supporting a model fit. The only index that dipped below 0.90 at 0.8611 was

Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980). Overall, this model fits the data well and as such was

accepted.

Table 5.2. Fit Statistics for Putnam’s Social Capital Model using
Multi-Sample SEM of Race in the Sample, 2000.
Constrained* Unconstrained
ALL Free
chi-square 192.7500 146.7604
chi-square DF 69 60
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0000
Chi-Square Ratio 2.7935 2.4460
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9268 0.9739
Bentler’s CFI 0.8743 0.9119
Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.8176 0.8611
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta 2 (1988) 0.8747 0.9129
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 545 634
RMSEA 0.0553 0.0497
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0694 0.0459
Total N 1175
White N 883
Non-White N 292
subtraction of chi-square/DF 46 9
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0000

The following figures show Putnam’s social capital model across the racial

groups of Whites and Non-Whites. The trust domain covaried with the bonding domain

126
with an estimate of 0.4050, significant with a t-score of 8.34; the trust domain covaried

with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.26 which was significant with a t-score of

5.36; and finally the bonding domain covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate

of 0.49 and a t-score of 10.58.

For model 1, Whites, all indicators significantly loaded on the bonding social

capital dimension. For Whites in the sample, a one standard deviation increase in

bonding social capital was associated with a 0.69 standard deviations increase in friends,

a 0.50 standard deviations increase in shared confidences, and a 0.19 standard deviations

increase in family contact. The strongest correlation was between friends and the bonding

domain for Whites. The R-square followed the same pattern with a R-square of 0.48 for

friends, 0.25 for shared confidences, and 0.04 for family contact. Therefore, we can say

that bonding social capital accounts for 48 percent of the variance in friends, 25 percent

of the variance in shared confidences, and only 4 percent of the variance in family

contact. Of all variables loading on bonding social capital, family contact had the

weakest loading. While unexpected, the theoretical writings of Putnam (2000) argued

that ties with close friends and those one feels closest to (e.g. feel comfortable sharing

confidences with) were a part of bonding social capital. However, these findings suggest

that when using Putnam’s social capital model on Whites as a group, family contact was

less important to one’s bonding social capital than friends or those with whom one shares

confidences.

All three indicators loaded significantly on the dimension of bridging social

capital for Whites. A one standard deviation increase in bridging social capital was

associated for Whites with an increase of 0.67 standard deviations in diversity, 0.52
50
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

127
standard deviations in group involvement index, and 0.32 standard deviations in worked

with others. For Whites, bridging social capital explained 45 percent of the variance in

diversity, 27 percent of the variance in the group involvement index, and 10 percent of the

variance in worked with others. The strongest indicator for Whites along the dimension

of bridging social capital was their diversity of friendships, while the weakest loading

was Whites working with those in their community toward a common goal. Across all

models, worked with others, appears to be the weakest indicator for bridging social

capital.

(0.71, [13.69], Friends (V2)

E2
0.69)

Bonding (0.37,[10.81],
Share confidences
(D2) 0.50)
(V3) E3
(3.79, [4.33], 0.19)
Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) (1.68, [13.49], Diversity (V9)
0.67) E9

(1.35, [11.20],
0.52) Group involvement E20
(0.15, [7.38], index (V20)
0.32)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1) (0.39, [12.46],
0.57) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.39, [10.37],
0.46)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.35, [12.05],
0.56)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 5.4 Putnam’s Social Capital Model, Whites in the Sample, 2000 (unstandardized
b, [t-statistic], unstandardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.92

128
 Finally, using Putnam’s social capital model rate your community, perception of

community trust and the social trust index loaded significantly on the dimension of trust

for Whites in 2000. A one standard deviation increase in trust was associated with a 0.57

standard deviations increase in rate your community, a 0.46 standard deviations increase

in perception of community trust, and a 0.56 standard deviations increase in the social

trust index for Whites in the sample. The trust dimension explained 32 percent of the

variation in rate your community, 21 percent of the variance in perception of community

trust, and 32 percent of the variance in the social trust index. For Whites then, rate your

community and the social trust index had the same amount of variance explained by the

trust dimension. Interestingly, all three indicators for trust were similar in strength,

although the social trust index was the strongest indicator for Whites when looking at the

standardized Betas.

When Putnam’s social capital model was run using the Non-White sample, the

trust domain covaried with the bonding domain with an estimate of 0.4051, significant

with a t-score of 8.34; the trust domain covaried with the bridging domain with an

estimate of 0.26 which was significant with a t-score of 5.36; and finally the bonding

domain covaried with the bridging domain with an estimate of 0.49 and a t-score of

10.58.

For Non-Whites in the sample, two indicators, friends and share confidences,

loaded significantly on the dimension of bonding social capital. However, family contact

was not statistically significant. In contrast, all indicators loaded significantly for Non-

Whites on the dimensions of bridging social capital and trust.

51
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

129
 A one standard deviation increase in bonding social capital for Non-Whites was

correlated with a 0.73 standard deviations increase in friends, and a 0.67 standard

deviations increase in shared confidences. The friends correlation to the bonding domain

was fairly strong at 0.73. Family contact did not load on the dimension of bonding social

capital for Non-Whites. This was further supported by a nearly non-existent R-square of

0.005. Whereas the R-square for friends was 0.53 and for shared confidences was at

0.45. Therefore, the results show that 53 percent of the variance in friends and 45 percent

of the variance in shared confidences was explained by bonding social capital for Non-

Whites in the sample.

For Non-Whites in the sample, a one standard deviation increase in bridging

social capital was associated with a 0.73 standard deviations increase in diversity, a 0.68

standard deviations increase in group involvement index, and a 0.36 standard deviations

increase in worked with others. The R-square for diversity was 0.53, for the group

involvement index was 0.46 and for worked with others it was at 0.13. Both diversity and

the group involvement index were strongly predicted by bridging social capital in the

model, however, worked for others was weakly predicted by bridging social capital for

Non-Whites.

The dimension of trust for Non-Whites also had three significant indicators. Here

a one standard deviation increase in trust translated to a 0.58 standard deviations increase

in rate your community, a 0.59 standard deviations increase in perception of community

trust, and a 0.71 standard deviations increase in the social trust index for Non-Whites.

The R-squares for the trust indicators for Non-Whites were 0.34 for rate your community,

0.34 for perception of community trust, and 0.51 for the social trust index. The strongest

130
loading was for the social trust index, where 51 percent of the variation in it was

explained by the trust domain. However, rate your community and perception of

community trust were fairly strong predictors for this domain as well.

While family contact was not significant for Non-Whites on the bonding social

capital dimension, it was significant for Whites. This suggests that family contact was

structurally more important for Whites than Non-Whites in 2000. However, when

looking at the unstandardized loadings, except for family contact, Non-Whites had a

stronger loading of social capital across bonding, bridging and trust. Non-Whites tended

to have stronger loadings for bonding social capital in terms of the number of close

friends reported and the number of people they felt comfortable sharing confidences.

This means that having close friends and people one can share confidences with were

stronger indicators for Non-Whites on the bonding domain than for Whites.

131
 (0.78, [11.61], Friends (V2)
E2
0.73)

Bonding (0.58,[10.89],
Share confidences
(D2) 0.67)
(V3) E3
(1.46,[1.04]NS 0.07)
Family contact (V27) E27

Bridging
(D3) (2.01, [12.08], Diversity (V9)
0.73) E9

(2.07, [11.28],
0.68) Group involvement E20
(0.17, [5.35], index (V20)
0.36)
Worked with others E25
(V25)
Trust (D1) (0.41, [9.11],
0.58) Rate your
community(V31) E31
(0.55, [9.33],
0.59)
Perception of
communitytrust(V22 E22
(0.53, [12.08],
0.71)
Social Trust Index(7) E7

Figure 5.5 Putnam’s Social Capital Model, Non-Whites in the Sample, 2000
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], unstandardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.07, GFI 0.94,
NFI 0.73

Whites had weaker loadings for bridging social capital in comparison with Non-

Whites and structurally they had weaker loadings for diverse friendships and group

involvement. Non-Whites had stronger loadings for working with others in their

communities toward a common goal. Along the trust dimension, Whites and Non-Whites

were very similar structurally in rating their communities, however, Non-Whites had

stronger loadings of both perception of community trust and social trust index. These

were not indicators that were race specific (see Chapter 3 for more details on variables).

132
 In general, the data showed that Whites in the sample had weaker loadings for the

indicators of bonding and bridging social capital as well as trust. The only dimension

that varied from that was bonding. Here, family contact was significant for Whites in the

sample and not at all for Non-Whites. However, Non-Whites had stronger loadings of

both friends and shared confidences when compared with Whites in 2000.

Putnam’s Model: Gender

Gender was divided into two groups, women and men. The hypothesis tested

here was that gender would have a significant association with the structure of Putnam’s

model of social capital. In order to test this hypothesis, as with social class and race, the

LR test was used to compare the constrained model with the unconstrained model. As

shown below in Table 5.3, that test was not significant (0.109). Because the LR test was

not significant we cannot argue there were any significant differences in the structure of

social capital for women and men using Putnam’s model. Therefore, it did not make

sense to report the unconstrained model and lose more degrees of freedom.

Consequently, the findings reported in Chapter 4 hold for both women and men’s social

capital in 2000 according to Putnam’s social capital model.

133
Table 5.3. Fit Statistics for Putnam’s Social Capital Model
Multi-Sample SEM with Gender and Social Capital.

Constrained Unconstrained
chi-square 181.3202 166.9233
chi-square DF 69 60
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0000
Chi-Square Ratio 2.6:1 2.8:1
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9722 0.9745
Bentler’s CFI 0.9271 0.9306
Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.8875 0.8964
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta 2 (1988) 0.9272 0.9311
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 713 685
RMSEA 0.0475 0.0497
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0506 0.0467
Total N 1445
Female N 866
Male N 579
subtraction of chi-square/DF 14.3969 9

Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.108890634

Coleman’s Social Capital Model

The following reports multi-sample SEM analysis using Coleman’s social capital

model for class, race, and gender. These findings were based off of the findings from the

CFA reported in chapter four.

Coleman’s Model: Social Class

As with Putnam, two models were compared using Coleman’s social capital

model, one that allowed all coefficients to freely estimate and another that constrained all

coefficients to be the same. The likelihood ratio (LR) test52 in Table 5.4 showed that

52
The LR statistic is also known as a chi-square difference statistic and allows a researcher to do a statistic
of significance between models (Bollen 1989). It can be written as: LR = (N – 1) Fr – (N - 1)Fu
= (N-1) (Fr – Fu)

134
social capital did not vary by income for Coleman’s model. What that means is that there

were no meaningful differences in the structure of social capital by income groups53. The

overall fit for the Coleman’s social capital model was better when the parameter

estimates were constrained with a chi-square ratio of 1.15:1. However, most fit indexes

fell above 0.90 and the RMSEA and SRMR (both looking at how well the data fit the

theory) were at 0.04 for each, well below 0.8. There was enough evidence with the chi-

square ratio, GFI, RMSEA, and SRMSR to accept the models. However, given that the

LR test was not significant showing no support for the first hypothesis, the original model

analysis holds for different social class groups and the structure of social capital when

using Coleman’s model.54

53
A standard .05 level of significance was used as a measure of statistical significance. If the LR statistic
was significant, then we accepted the more complex (freely estimated) model over the simpler
(constrained) model. Worded another way, if it was significantly different then the LR was significant
and thus worth losing for example 18 degree of freedom because there were significant differences
found.
54
Three other constrained models were statisticed as well, where two groups at a time were constrained and
one allowed to freely estimate. Because there were significant differences found, those models were not
reported.

135
 Table 5.4. Fit Statistics for Coleman’s Social Capital Model,
Multi-Sample Structural Equation Modeling for Social Class.
*Constrained Unconstrained
All Free
chi-square 130.7839 118.9576
chi-square DF 114 96
Pr>Chi-Square 0.1346 0.0562
Chi-Square Ratio 1.1472 1.2391
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9850 0.9863
Bentler’s CFI 0.9909 0.9875
Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.9328 0.9389
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta
2 (1988) 0.9908 0.9876
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 2029 1911
RMSEA 0.0153 0.0195
Root Mean (RMSR) 0.1245 0.1135
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0421 0.0381
subtraction of chi-square/DF 11.8263 18
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.856074397
N 1898
Lower 642
Middle 745
Upper 511

Coleman’s Model: Race

The two models compared for race differences using Coleman’s social capital

model had one freely estimated and one constraining, Whites and Non-Whites to be the

same. The likelihood ratio (LR) test55 (0.000) in Table 5.5 showed that for Coleman’s

social capital model, social capital varied by race. Therefore we can say there were

meaningful differences in the structure of Coleman’s social capital by racial groups56.

55
The LR statistic is also known as a chi-square difference statistic and allows a researcher to do a statistic
of significance between models (Bollen 1989). It can be written as: LR = (N – 1) Fr – (N - 1)Fu
= (N-1) (Fr – Fu)
56
A standard .05 level of significance was used as a measure of statistical significance. If the LR statistic
was significant, then we accepted the more complex (freely estimated) model over the simpler
(constrained) model. Worded another way, if it was significantly different then the LR was significant

136
Moreover, the overall fit for the Coleman social capital model was better when the

parameter estimates were allowed to freely estimate with a chi-square ratio of 1.7:1.

Most fit indexes were close to 1 for the unconstrained model, whereas the NFI dipped

below 0.90 for the constrained model. Further, the RMSEA was lower for the

unconstrained model at 0.04 and the SRMSR was also lower at 0.04, showing support

that the data fits the theoretical model. Therefore, there was enough evidence with the

chi-square ratio, fit indexes, RMSEA, and SRMSR to accept the unconstrained model.

Furthermore, the statistically significant LR test showed support for the second

hypothesis. Consequently, the following analysis examines the multi-sample

unconstrained model for Coleman across Whites and Non-Whites in the sample.

and thus worth losing for example 18 degree of freedom because there were significant differences
found.

137
Table 5.5 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Race
and Social Capital in the Sample, 2000.
Coleman
Constrained Unconstrained

chi-square 141.4722 99.5964

chi-square DF 69 60
Pr>Chi-Square 0 0.0976
Chi-Square Ratio 2.0503 1.6599
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9707 0.9786
Bentler’s CFI 0.9223 0.9575

Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.8592 0.9009

Bollen Non-normed Index
Delta 2 (1988) 0.9225 0.9581

Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 646 811

RMSEA 0.0454 0.0360
Root Mean (RMSR) 0.2583 0.0825
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0626 0.0432
subtraction of chi-square/DF 9 41.8758

Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0000

Total N 1022
White 764
Non-White 258

For the covariances among domains, for Whites, the E/O domain covaried with

the IC domain with an estimate of 0.53,57 significant with a t-score of 11.87; the E/O

domain covaried with the SN domain with an estimate of 0.21 which was significant with

a t-score of 4.38; and finally the SN domain covaried with the IC domain with an

estimate of 0.21 and a t-score of 3.93.

The following figures show Coleman’s social capital model across racial groups.

As shown in Figure 5.5, all indicators significantly loaded on the expectations/obligations

(E/O) dimension for model 1 (Whites). Thus we can say for those in the sample who

57
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

138
were White, a one standard deviation increase in E/O social capital was associated with a

0.81 standard deviations increase in the group involvement index, a 0.43 standard

deviations increase in other church participation, and a 0.52 standard deviations increase

in club meetings. Of all variables loading on E/O social capital, other church

participation and club meetings both loaded fairly strongly, although the latter was the

weakest loading for E/O social capital. The group involvement index had a very strong

loading at 0.81 for Whites. Stated another way, the correlation between the group

involvement of those from the sample with the E/O domain was both positive and strong

(e.g., close to 1.0).

As with Putnam, the R-square statistic was used to assess how well the model and

its parts predicted for Whites. Only 18 percent of the variation in other church

participation was explained by E/O social capital for Whites. However, 27 percent of the

variation in club meetings and 65 percent of the variation in group involvement index was

explained by E/O social capital, which were fairly strong and very strong results for R-

square. It was clear that for Whites in 2000, E/O social capital was a strong predictor for

group involvement.

All indicators loaded at a statistically significant level for information channels

(IC) for Whites. Here a one standard deviation increase in the IC domain was associated

with a 0.18 standard deviations increase in fictive kin, a 0.63 standard deviations increase

in business owner, and a 0.60 standard deviations increase in vacation home. The

strongest loadings were business owner and vacation home. Interestingly fictive kin had a

very weak loading and using R-square the IC accounted for only 3 percent of the

variation in fictive kin. In contrast, 39 percent of the variation in business owner and 36

139
percent of the variation in vacation home was explained by the IC for Whites. These

findings suggest that fictive kin was not all that important to Whites in the context of IC

for this sample.

Group involvement
E15
(2.07, [16.57],0.81 ) index (V15)

Expectatio (0.21,[12.73], 0.43) Other church

n/Obligati
participation (V16) E16
on (E/O)
D1 (0.82, [12.24], 0.52) Club meetings (V21) E21

(0.67, [3.79], 0.18) Fictivkin (V12) E12

Informatio
(0.29, [12.51], 0.63)
n Channel Business Owner
E27
(IC) D2 (V27)

(0.30, [12.49], 0.60) Vacation Home E28

(V28)

Social
(0.40,[11.38], 0.58) Rate your
Norms
(SN) D3 community(V8) E8
(0.39,[9.50], 0.46 )
Perception of
community trust(V9) E9

(0.34,[10.65], 0.56)
Social Trust E10
Index(V10)

Figure 5.6. Coleman’s Social Capital Model Multi-Sample SEM for Whites in 2000,
(unstandardized beta, [t-statistic], unstandardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI
0.99, NFI 0.94.

All indicators for the social norm dimension (SN) of Coleman’s social capital

loaded at a statistically significant level. For Whites, a one standard deviation increase in

SN was correlated with a 0.58 standard deviations increase in rate your community, a

140
0.46 standard deviations increase in perception of community trust, and a 0.56 standard

deviations increase in the social trust index. While they were not identical, it was

interesting how close in strength all three indicators loaded. Similarly, 34 percent of the

variation in rate your community, 21 percent of the variation in perception of community

trust, and 31 percent of the variation in the social trust index was explained by SN. Thus

we can say that Whites overall have a fairly strong sense of social norms in the form of

trust.

The other racial group under study was Non-White; this group included anyone

who did not self-identify as White. For the covariances among domains, the E/O domain

covaried with the IC domain with an estimate of 0.53,58 significant with a t-score of

11.87; the E/O domain covaried with the SN domain with an estimate of 0.21 which was

significant with a t-score of 4.38; and finally the IC domain covaried with the SN domain

with an estimate of 0.21 and a t-score of 3.93.

For the E/O dimension of Coleman’s social capital model, all indicators loaded

significantly. Therefore we can say for Non-Whites, a one standard deviation increase in

E/O social capital was associated with a 0.88 standard deviations increase in the group

involvement index, a 0.35 standard deviations increase in other church participation, and

a 0.52 standard deviations increase in club meetings. While other church participation

and club meetings were not weak, clearly group involvement loaded strongly for Non-

Whites on the E/O dimension of social capital. In terms of the E/O predicting these

indicators, for Non-Whites only 12 percent of the variance in other church participation

was explained by the E/O. While 27 percent of the variance in club meetings and 77

percent of the variance in group involvement index were explained by the E/O dimension.
58
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

141
 For the IC dimension, all indicators loaded significantly for Non-Whites. A one

standard deviation increase in IC social capital was associated with a 0.27 standard

deviations increase in fictive kin for Non-Whites. While a one standard deviation

increase in IC social capital was associated with a 0.67 standard deviations increase in

business owner and a 0.54 standard deviations increase in vacation home. IC social

capital explained the most variance for business owner, 45 percent. Vacation home had

29 percent of its variance explained by IC social capital, however, only 7 percent of the

variance in fictive kin was explained by IC social capital. The latter finding suggests that

for Non-Whites, IC social capital had less to do with the people one sees as “family” and

more to do with ties to people with specific resources or knowledge (e.g. owning one’s

own business).

142
 Group involvement
E15
(2.81, [16.11],0.88 ) index (V15)

Expectatio (0.17,[5.13], 0.35)

n/Obligati Other church
participation (V16) E16
on (E/O)
D1 (0.81, [8.05], 0.52) Club meetings (V21) E21

(1.06, [3.50], 0.27) Fictivkin (V12) E12

Informatio
(0.33, [9.58], 0.67)
n Channel Business Owner
E27
(IC) D2 (V27)

(0.26, [7.28], 0.54) Vacation Home E28

(V28)

Social
(0.41,[8.62], 0.59) Rate your
Norms
(SN) D3 community(V8) E8
(0.46,[7.51], 0.52)
Perception of
community trust(V9) E9

(0.53,[11.34], 0.72)
Social Trust E10
Index(V10)

Figure 5.7. Coleman’s Social Capital Model Multi-Sample SEM for Non-Whites in 2000,
(unstandardized beta, [t-statistic], unstandardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.06, GFI
0.96, NFI 0.80.

All indicators for the SN social capital dimension loaded significantly. For Non-

Whites, a one standard deviation increase in SN social capital was a correlated with a

0.59 standard deviations increase in rate your community, a 0.52 standard deviations

increase in the perception of community trust, and a 0.72 standard deviations increase in

the social trust index. Therefore, for Non-Whites in the sample, there were positive,

significant, and fairly strong correlations between the indicators and the SN domain.

This was strongest for the social trust index where 52 percent of the variance was

143
explained by SN social capital. The other two indicators had fairly strong R-squares also,

0.35 for rate your community and 0.27 for perception of community trust. These findings

support that for Non-Whites there was a fairly strong amount of trust, here measured as a

form of SN social capital.

When analyzing the unstandardized betas a more complex picture was revealed

for the differences between Whites and Non-Whites using Coleman’s social capital

model. Non-Whites had structurally stronger (2.81) group involvement than Whites

(2.07) in the sample. However, Whites (0.21) had a slightly stronger loading for other

church participation than Non-Whites (0.17). Therefore, group involvement tells us

more about E/O social capital for Non-Whites than Whites; and other church

participation tells us slightly more for Whites than Non-Whites. For club meetings both

groups were nearly identical (0.82 and 0.81).

For the IC dimension of Coleman’s model, Non-Whites (1.06) had stronger fictive

kin loadings than Whites (0.67), both groups were similar on business owner (0.29 and

0.33), but Whites loaded slightly stronger on vacation home. Along the SN dimension,

both groups were basically the same for rate your community (0.40 and 0.41), however,

Non-Whites (0.46) loaded slightly stronger on perception of community trust than Whites

(0.39). Finally, Non-Whites (0.53) in the sample had a stronger loading for trust than

Whites (0.34).

In sum, the E/O domain indicators were stronger for Non-Whites than Whites,

due in part to their high loading of group involvement. Non-Whites also had stronger

loading on IC social capital, especially seen in the structure of non-relations whom they

considered part of the family. Moreover, Non-Whites had stronger loadings of trust than

144
Whites, here as part of social norms. These findings could be understood through the

lens of privilege. Being White in America carries with it some privilege (Doane 2003;

Feagin and McKinney 2003), and as such, it may be that Whites do not have to work as

hard along the aspect of social norms for their social capital. However, it was interesting

that Non-Whites had structurally stronger loadings for fictive kin, although Stack (1974)

did write about the need for strong social networks beyond one’s immediate family. It

may be that those in the minority have greater need of these forms of social capital and

thus put more time and energy into creating and maintaining it, as seen with the

difference in the group involvement index.

Coleman’s Model: Gender

As with Putnam, two models were compared using Coleman’s social capital

model, one that allowed all coefficients to freely estimate and another that constrained all

coefficients to be the same. The likelihood ratio (LR) test59 (0.14) in Table 5.6 showed

that social capital did not vary by gender for Coleman’s social capital model. Therefore

we can say that there was no support for Hypothesis three, and that there were no

meaningful differences in the structure of social capital by gender60 when using

Coleman’s social capital model. The overall fit for Coleman’s social capital model was

essentially the same for the constrained and unconstrained models. Both models fit well

with a chi-square ratio of 1.4:1 for each. The fit indexes fell well above 0.90 and the

59
The LR statistic is also known as a chi-square difference statistic and allows a researcher to do a statistic
of significance between models (Bollen 1989). It can be written as: LR = (N – 1) Fr – (N - 1)Fu
= (N-1) (Fr – Fu)
60
A standard .05 level of significance was used as a measure of statistical significance. If the LR statistic
was significant, then we accepted the more complex (freely estimated) model over the simpler
(constrained) model. Worded another way, if it was significantly different then the LR was significant
and thus worth losing for example 18 degree of freedom because there were significant differences
found.

145
RMSEA and SRMR (both looking at how well the data fit the theory) were at 0.03 for

each, well below 0.8. There was enough evidence with the chi-square ratio, GFI,

RMSEA, and SRMSR to accept the models. However, given that the LR test was not

significant, the original model analysis for Coleman holds for men and women.

Table 5.6. Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Gender

And Social Capital in the Sample 2000.
Coleman
Constrained Unconstrained
chi-square 97.0953 83.5515
chi-square DF 69 60
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0003 0.0239
Chi-Square Ratio 1.4:1 1.4:1
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9836 0.9857
Bentler’s CFI 0.9781 0.9816
Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.9283 0.9383
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta
2 (1988) 0.9781 0.9818
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 1157 1189
RMSEA 0.0255 0.0250
Root Mean (RMSR) 1.8158 0.6949
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0461 0.0370
subtraction of chi-square/DF 9 13.5438
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.1395
Total N 1257
Women 772
Men 485

Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model

Bourdieu’s social capital was a small, but a potentially important piece of his

larger theory on inequality. While the following analysis did not include the three other

forms of capital from Bourdieu, it was based on his theory and incorporates, as much as

the data would allow, for context in the form of fields. The following analysis follows

the same course as Putnam and Coleman, presenting the multi-sample SEM results for

class, race, and gender.

146
Bourdieu’s Model: Social Class

Two models were compared using Putnam’s social capital model, one that

allowed all coefficients to freely estimate and another that constrained coefficients to be

the same across groups. The first hypothesis was supported for this model using the

likelihood ratio (LR) test61 (0.0000) in Table 5.7, which showed that for Bourdieu’s

social capital model, social capital varied by income. In other words, there were

meaningful differences in the structure of social capital by income groups62.

However, most fit indexes ranged between 0.80 and 0.90. The only index falling

above 0.90 at 0.9635 was the GFI. The RMSEA and SRMR (both looking at how well

the data fit the theory) were at 0.06 and 0.07 respectively. While the fit of the model

itself was not as good as the original (see chapter 4), there was enough evidence with the

chi-square ratio (2,6:1), GFI, RMSEA, and SRMSR to accept the model. Given the

evidence, we accept the unconstrained model as being better than the constrained and

showing important structural differences in social capital along class groups. Thus, the

following analysis examines the multi-sample unconstrained model for Bourdieu across

lower, middle and upper social class groups.63

61
The LR statistic is also known as a chi-square difference statistic and allows a researcher to do a statistic
of significance between models (Bollen 1989). It can be written as: LR = (N – 1) Fr – (N - 1)Fu
= (N-1) (Fr – Fu)
62
A standard .05 level of significance was used as a measure of statistical significance. If the LR statistic
was significant, then we accepted the more complex (freely estimated) model over the simpler
(constrained) model. Worded another way, if it was significantly different then the LR was significant
and thus worth losing for example 18 degree of freedom because there were significant differences
found.
63
Three other constrained models were statisticed as well, where two groups at a time were constrained and
one allowed to freely estimate. Because there were significant differences found, those models were not
reported.

147
Table 5.7. Fit Statistics for Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model,
Multi-Sample SEM for Social Class, U.S., 2000.
*Constrained Unconstrained
All Free
chi-square 382.8819 320.4031
chi-square DF 142 122
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0000
Chi-Square Ratio 2.6964 2.6263
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9555 0.9635
Bentler’s CFI 0.8771 0.8988
Bentler & Bonett’s NFI (1980) 0.8172 0.8471
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta
2 (1988) 0.8767 0.8994
Hoelter’s (1983), Critical N 716 745
RMSEA 0.0564 0.0552
Root Mean (RMSR) 6.4982 3.5584
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0890 0.0697
subtraction of chi-square/DF 62.4788 20
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0000
N 1605
Lower 467
Middle 790
Upper 348

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for the lower class, the religious domain

covaried with the community domain with an estimate of -0.06,64 with a non-significant

t-score of -1.64; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with an estimate

of -0.17 which was significant with a t-score of -4.48; and finally the community domain

covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.18 and a t-score of 4.34.

For model 1, the lower class, all indicators significantly loaded on the religious

social capital dimension. For those in the sample who were lower class, one standard

deviation increase in the religious field was associated with a 0.84 standard deviations

decrease in volunteer religious, a 0.64 standard deviations decrease in religious

64
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

148
membership, and a 0.36 standard deviations decrease in religious groups. Therefore, as

one’s religious social capital increased, a respondent would experience a statistically

significant decrease in the amount they volunteered for religious groups, their religious

membership, and membership in religious groups65. Of all variables loading on religious

social capital, religious groups had the weakest loading. Moreover, religious groups had

an R-square of 0.13 which was low. That meant that only that 13 percent of the variance

in religious groups was explained by the religious field. Alternatively, the strongest

loading for the religious field was -0.84 for volunteer religious. The R-square for

volunteer religious supports the argument that this was the strongest indicator, 70 percent

of its variance was explained by the religious field for those in the lower class. Religious

membership had 41 percent of its variance explained by the religious field. For social

science research a 0.70 R-square is extremely high (Allison 1999).

Friend contact, coworker contact, and hanging with friends also loaded

significantly on the community field dimension (t-statistics going no lower than 12.54).

Thus, a one standard deviation increase in community social capital was correlated with a

0.76 standard deviations increase in friend contact, a 0.63 standard deviations increase in

the coworker contact, and a 0.61 standard deviations increase in hanging with friends.

Clearly friend contact had the highest loading and was therefore the strongest indicator

for community social capital for those in the sample from a lower social class. For those

in the lower class, 58 percent of the variation in friend contact, 40 percent of the variation

in coworker contact, and 37 percent of the variation in hanging with friends was

explained by the community field.

65
The coding for these indicators were checked and re-checked for error, the analysis was re-run to check
for possible error in the first run. No problems were found with the coding and the findings remained.

149
 Further, all indicators for the political field loaded at statistically significant

levels, albeit lower with t-scores ranging from 3.89 to 6.14. A one standard deviation

increase in the political field dimension of social capital for the lower class was

correlated with a 0.44 standard deviations increase in rally, a 0.34 standard deviations

increase in public interest groups, a 0.38 increase in petition, and a 0.28 standard

deviations increase in neighborhood association.

(-0.37,[-14.59], - Volunteer Religious

0.84) (V2) E2

Religious (-0.31,[-12.06], -0.64) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(-0.14,[-6.83],-0.36) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.76,[16.29],0.76)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(V42)
(10.87,[13.20],0.63)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(10.90,[12.54],0.61 ) Hanging with

E44
Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.15,[6.14],0.44 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.09,[4.62],0.34)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27

(0.18,[5.38],0.38)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.12, [3.89],0.28)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.8. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Lower Social Class, model 1,
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.08, GFI 0.96,
NFI 0.81

150
 However, aside from rally, the indicators’ loadings were relatively weak. This

corresponded to low R-squares in that 20 percent of the variation in rally was explained

by the political field. However, only 11 percent of the variation in public interest groups,

14 percent of the variation in petition, and 8 percent of the variation in neighborhood

association were explained by the political field.

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for the middle class, the religious domain

covaried with the community domain with an estimate of -0.06,66 with a non-significant

t-score of -1.64; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with an estimate

of -0.17 which was significant with a t-score of -4.48; and finally the community domain

covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.18 and a t-score of 4.34.

Again, for the middle class using Bourdieu’s social capital model, all indicators

loaded negatively and significantly on the religious field dimension. A one standard

deviation increase in religious field was associated with a 0.86 standard deviations

decrease in volunteer religious, a 0.62 standard deviations decrease in religious

membership, and a 0.34 standard deviations decrease in religious groups. As with the

lower class from the sample, for those in the middle class the strongest loading was for

volunteer religious and the lowest was for religious groups. In fact, 75 percent of the

variation in volunteer religious was explained by religious social capital. With not as

much explained variance, but still a substantial amount, 38 percent of the variance in

religious membership was explained by religious social capital. However, only 12

percent of the variance in religious groups was explained by the religious field. It was

somewhat surprising that both the lower and middle classes in the sample had a negative

66
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

151
relationship between these three indicators and the religious field. One would think that

the correlation between social capital in the religious field and the religious indicators

would mean a positive relationship.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for the community field domain.

The structure of social capital for those in the middle class meant that a one standard

deviation in community social capital was associated with a 0.75 standard deviations

increase in friend contact, a 0.52 standard deviations increase in coworker contact, and a

0.62 standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. For those in the middle class,

56 percent of the variance in friend contact was explained by the community field. While

27 percent of the variance in coworker contact was explained by the community field

dimension, 38 percent of the variance in hanging with friends was explained by

community social capital.

As with the lower class, all indicators for the political field dimension loaded

positively and significantly. A one standard deviation increase was associated with a

0.54 standard deviations increase in rally, a 0.52 standard deviations increase in public

interest groups, a 0.37 standard deviations increase in petition, and a 0.31 standard

deviations increase in neighborhood associations for those in the middle class in 2000.

For the middle class, 29 percent of the variation in rally and 27 percent of the

variation in public interest groups was explained by the political field dimension of

Bourdieu’s social capital model. However, only 14 percent of the variation in petition

and 9 percent of the variation in neighborhood association was explained by political

social capital. The strongest loading for the political field dimension was clearly rally,

152
but all indicators loaded fairly strongly, although less of the variation in the indicators

was explained overall by this dimension than the other dimensions.

(-0.42,[-18.76], - Volunteer Religious

0.86) (V2) E2

Religious (-0.29,[-14.48], -0.62) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(-0.13,[-8.56],-0.34) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.40,[19.09],0.75)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(8.19,[13.05],0.52) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(11.02,[15.53],0.62 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.20,[10.91],0.54 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.14,[10.52],0.52)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.18,[7.61],0.37)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.13, [6.31],0.31)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.9. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Middle Social Class, model 2,
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.05, GFI 0.98,
NFI 0.92

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for the upper class, the religious domain

covaried with the community domain with an estimate of -0.06,67 with a non-significant

t-score of -1.64; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with an estimate

67
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

153
of -0.17 which was significant with a t-score of -4.48; and finally the community domain

covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.18 and a t-score of 4.34.

Conversely, for those in the upper class, all indicators loaded positively and

significantly for the religious field dimension. A one standard deviation increase in

religious social capital was associated with a 0.88 standard deviations increase in

volunteer religious, a 0.60 standard deviations increase in religious membership, and a

0.35 standard deviations increase in religious groups. Based on the findings above for

lower and middle class groups, we can say that the upper class has a positive return

structurally on religious social capital, while the lower and middle classes have a

negative, albeit significant return structurally on religious social capital.

As with the other class groups, the most variance explained by the religious field

was volunteer religious, 77 percent. Thirty-six percent of the variance in religious

membership was explained by religious social capital, where only 12 percent of the

variance in religious groups was explained by the religious field. While these predictions

were similar in strength to that of the lower and middle classes, the direction of the

relationship was not.

For those in the upper class, all indicators loaded positively and significantly for

the community field as well with t-scores ranging from 10.57 to 14.32. A one standard

deviation increase in community social capital was correlated with a 0.76 standard

deviations increase in friend contact, a 0.59 standard deviations increase in coworker

contact, and a 0.66 standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. Therefore, for

those in the upper class in 2000, we can say that an increase in community social capital

was associated with contacting more friends, coworkers, and hanging out with friends

154
more in a social setting. The strongest loading for this dimension of social capital was

friend contact, although all three loaded fairly strongly. The most variance explained by

the community field was friend contact, with an R-square of 0.57. Community social

capital explained 57 percent of the variance in coworker contact, and 44 percent of the

variance in hanging with friends.

Finally, all indicators loaded positively and significantly for the political field. A

one standard deviation increase was associated with a 0.72 standard deviations increase

in rally, a 0.78 standard deviations increase in public interest groups, a 0.38 standard

deviations increase in petition, and a 0.31 standard deviations increase in neighborhood

association. Both rally and public interest groups had very strong loadings. It did not

seem as though petition and neighborhood association had weak loadings. However,

only 15 percent of the variation in petition and 9 percent of the variation in neighborhood

association was explained by political social capital; whereas, 52 percent of the variation

in rally, and 61 percent of the variation in public interest groups was explained by the

political field.

155
 (0.44,[16.22], 0.88) Volunteer Religious
(V2) E2

Religious (0.28,[10.35],0.60) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(0.13,[5.92],0.35) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.62,[14.32],0.76)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(9.79,[10.57],0.59) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(12.41,[12.14],0.66 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.32,[13.89],0.72 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.30,[15.86],0.78)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.19,[6.45],0.38)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.13, [5.06],0.31)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.10. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Upper social class, model 3,
(unstandardized b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.10, GFI 0.93,
NFI 0.75

Bourdieu’s Model: Race

As with social class, an unconstrained and constrained model along the racial

groups of White and Non-White were compared using the LR test. For Bourdieu’s social

capital model, the LR test was statistically significant at 0.0002, supporting hypothesis

two stating that there were differences in the structure of social capital along racial

groups. Thus, it made sense to lose 10 degrees of freedom because important information

156
on the differences could be analyzed. The fit of the unconstrained model was overall

good. The chi-square ratio was a bit high at 2.7:1, but the fit indexes were mostly over

0.90, with the exception of the NFI at 0.8855. Further, the RMSEA was under 0.08 at

0.05 and the SRMSR was also good at 0.06. Therefore, the following analysis examines

the structure of Bourdieu’s social capital model across the two models, one for Whites

and one for Non-Whites.

Table 5.8 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Race and

Bourdieu’s Social Capital in the Sample 2000.
Bourdieu
Constrained Unconstrained
All Free
chi-square 173.0352 207.5083
chi-square DF 87 77
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0000
Chi-Square Ratio 1.9889 2.6949
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9752 0.9714
Bentler's CFI 0.9501 0.9242
Bentler & Bonett's NFI (1980) 0.9045 0.8855

Bollen Non-normed Index Delta 2 (1988) 0.9501 0.9248

Hoelter's (1983), Critical N 887 664
RMSEA 0.0376 0.0493
Root Mean (RMSR) 4.2335 2.0662
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0513 0.0617
subtraction of chi-square/DF 10 34.4731
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0002
Total N 1398
White 1017
Non-White 381

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for Whites in the sample, the religious

domain covaried with the community domain with an estimate of 0.004,68 with a non-

significant t-score of 0.101; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with

68
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

157
an estimate of -0.13 which was significant with a t-score of -3.39; and finally the

community domain covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.18 and a t-

score of 4.43.

Unexpectedly, all indicators loaded negatively and significantly for Whites on the

religious field with t-scores ranging from -8.60 to -16.67. We found that a one standard

deviation increase was associated with a 0.86 standard deviations decrease in volunteer

religious, a 0.62 standard deviations decrease in religious membership, and a 0.31

standard deviations decrease in religious groups. There was in fact a negative return

structurally in their religious social capital. The strongest correlation was for volunteer

religious, and the weakest loading was on religious groups. In fact, only 10 percent of

the variation in religious groups was explained by the religious field. Conversely, 73

percent of the variation in volunteer religious, and 38 percent of the variation in religious

membership was explained by religious social capital.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for Whites on the community

field. For this group, a one standard deviation increase was associated with a 0.75

standard deviations increase in friend contact, a 0.53 standard deviations increase in

coworker contact, and a 0.62 standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. The

strongest loading for this group along the community dimension was friend contact,

followed closely by hanging with friends, and a fairly strong showing by coworker

contact. In fact, 56 percent of the variation found in friend contact, 28 percent of the

variation in coworker contact, and 39 percent of the variation in hanging with friends was

explained by community social capital.

158
 Finally, all the indicators for political field loaded positively and significantly for

Whites in 2000. A one standard deviation increase was associated with a 0.63 standard

deviations increase in rally, a 0.56 standard deviations increase in public interest groups,

a 0.40 standard deviations increase in petition, and a 0.23 standard deviations increase in

neighborhood association. Thus, for Whites in the sample whose political social capital

increased spent more time on rallies, in public interest groups, signing petitions, and

working on their neighborhoods. The strongest loading for political social capital for this

group was rally. Not surprisingly, the R-square for rally was fairly strong at 0.44.

Therefore, 44 percent of the variation seen in rally was explained by a respondent’s

political social capital. While not as strong, 26 percent of the variation in public interest

groups, 16 percent of the variation in petition, and 22 percent of the variation in

neighborhood associations was explained by the political field.

159
 (-0.41,[-16.67], - Volunteer Religious
0.86) (V2) E2

Religious (-0.29,[-14.28],-0.62) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(-0.12,[-8.60],-0.31) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.08,[19.55],0.75)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(8.63,[14.76],0.53) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(11.06,[16.82],0.62 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.24,[14.17],0.63 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.17,[13.22],0.56)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.20,[9.84],0.40)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.10, [5.65],0.23)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.11. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Whites, model 1, (unstandardized b, [t-
statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.05, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.93

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for Non-Whites in the sample, the religious

domain covaried with the community domain with an estimate of 0.004,69 with a non-

significant t-score of 0.101; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with

an estimate of -0.13 which was significant with a t-score of -3.39; and finally the

community domain covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.18 and a t-

score of 4.43.

69
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

160
 However, for Non-Whites in this sample all indicators loaded positively and

significantly on the religious field. This was in stark contrast to Whites from the sample.

For Non-Whites, a one standard deviation increase in religious social capital was

associated with a 0.86 standard deviations increase in volunteer religious, a 0.59 standard

deviations increase in religious membership, and a 0.41 standard deviations increase in

religious groups. The strongest loading for Non-Whites on the religious field was for

volunteer religious. Based on the R-square, 74 percent of the variation found in

volunteer religious was explained by religious social capital. While the other loadings

were not what one would deem weak, they were not as predictive as volunteer religious.

Thirty-five percent of the variation in religious membership and 17 percent of the

variation in religious groups was explained by religious social capital. The main point of

interest for this particular dimension was that all indicators for Non-Whites were positive,

as opposed to Whites where they were negative.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for Non-Whites on the

community field, t-scores ranged from 9.54 to 14.81. For Non-Whites a one standard

deviation increase in community social capital was associated with a 0.77 standard

deviations increase in friend contact, a 0.53 standard deviations increase in coworker

contact, and a 0.67 standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. Therefore, we

can say that Non-Whites in the sample whose community social capital increased led to

contacting more friends and coworkers, and spending more time with friends socially.

All three loadings were fairly strong, the strongest being friend contact. In fact, 58

percent of the variation in friend contact was explained by the community field for Non-

Whites. Twenty-eight percent of the variation in coworker contact was explained by

161
community social capital. Lastly, 45 percent of the variation found in hanging with

friends was explained by community social capital for Non-Whites.

Finally, all indicators loaded both positively and significantly for Non-Whites on

the political field. A one standard deviation increase in political social capital was

correlated with a 0.66 standard deviations increase in rally, a 0.51 standard deviations

increase in public interest groups, a 0.41 standard deviations increase in petition, and a

0.47 standard deviations increase in neighborhood associations in 2000. The strongest

loading for this group, as with Whites, was rally. In terms of predicting, the weakest

predicted indicator was petition, where only 16 percent of the variation was explained by

political social capital. The variation in public interest groups and neighborhood

associations was explained by the political field at 0.26 and 0.22 respectively. However,

the most variation, 44 percent, was explained by political social capital for rally.

162
 (0.42,[14.44], 0.86) Volunteer Religious
(V2) E2

Religious (0.27,[10.19],0.59) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(0.16,[7.21],0.41) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.92,[14.81],0.77)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(8.59,[9.54],0.53) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(12.51,[12.60],0.67 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.26,[11.43],0.66 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.15,[8.42],0.51)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.20,[6.55],0.41)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.21, [7.83],0.47)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.12. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Non-Whites, model 2, (unstandardized
b, [t-statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.09, GFI 0.95, NFI 0.79

There were significant, but few differences in the structure of social capital

between Whites and Non-Whites using Bourdieu’s social capital model. For both the

community and political fields, there were slight differences in the structure of social

capital for each group. For example, Whites (14.08) had a slightly weaker loading for

contact with friends when compared with Non-Whites (14.92) and a slightly weaker

loading (11.06) for time spent socially with friends than Non-Whites (12.51). However,

Whites (8.63) had a slightly stronger loading for contact with coworkers than Non-

163
Whites (8.59). Within the field of politics Whites and Non-Whites were essentially the

same on rally (0.24, 0.26), public interest groups (0.17, 0.15), and petition (0.20, 0.20).

However, there was a slightly stronger loading for neighborhood association for Non-

Whites (0.21) when compared to Whites (0.10). Therefore this indicator tells us more

about the political field for Non-Whites than Whites.

The biggest difference in the structure of social capital for Bourdieu’s social

capital model between Whites and Non-Whites was in the religious field. Here Whites

had a negative relationship between the religious field and the three indicators, volunteer

religious, religious membership, and religious groups. Therefore we can say that for

Whites in this sample, when compared with Non-Whites in 2000, there was a negative

return structurally on religious social capital. Worded another way, there was an inverse

relationship for Whites between the religious domain and volunteering in religion, being

a member of a religion, and being a part of religious groups. This finding alone was

unexpected and interesting, but made even more so because the exact opposite was true

for Non-Whites. The latter’s relationship along the religious field indicators was positive

and significant, in nearly the same strength, but with a differing structure.

Bourdieu’s Model: Gender

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model, two models were run along gender lines

for women and men one unconstrained and one constrained. The LR test was statistically

significant at 0.0008, supporting hypothesis three stating that there were differences in

the structure of social capital along gender groups. Thus, it made sense to lose 10

degrees of freedom because important information on the differences could be analyzed.

164
The fit of the unconstrained model was overall very good. The chi-square ratio was

below 2 at 1.6:1, and the fit indexes scored over 0.90, without exception. Further, the

RMSEA was clearly under 0.08 at 0.02 and the SRMSR was also good at 0.03.

Therefore, the following analysis examines the structural differences between men and

women using Bourdieu’s social capital model.

Table 5.9 Fit Statistics for Multi-Sample SEM of Gender

And Bourdieu’s Social Capital in the Sample, 2000.
Bourdieu
Constrained Unconstrained
All Free
chi-square 156.2245 126.0820
chi-square DF 87 77
Pr>Chi-Square 0.0000 0.0004
Chi-Square Ratio 1.8:1 1.6:1
Goodness of fit (GFI) 0.9823 0.9856
Bentler's CFI 0.9686 0.9777
Bentler & Bonett's NFI (1980) 0.9319 0.9450
Bollen Non-normed Index Delta 2
(1988) 0.9686 0.9779
Hoelter's (1983), Critical N 1197 1331
RMSEA 0.0306 0.0274
Root Mean (RMSR) 5.9781 1.7630
Standardized (SRMSR) 0.0452 0.0343
subtraction of chi-square/DF 10 30.1425
Likelihood Ratio (LR) Test 0.0008
Total N 1704
Women 958
Men 746

Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for women in the sample, the religious

domain covaried with the community domain with an estimate of 0.11,70 with a

significant t-score of 3.32; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with

an estimate of 0.36 which was significant with a t-score of 10.39; and finally the

70
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

165
community domain covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.20 and a t-

score of 5.42.

For women, all indicators loaded positively and significantly on the religious

field. A one standard deviation increase in religious social capital was associated with a

0.88 standard deviations increase in volunteer religious, a 0.59 standard deviations

increase in religious membership, and a 0.35 standard deviations increase in religious

groups. The most variance explained by the religious field was volunteer religious, 77

percent. Thirty-five percent of the variance in religious membership was explained by

religious social capital, where only 12 percent of the variance in religious groups was

explained by the religious field.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for the community field as well

with t-scores ranging from 14.10 to 20.69. A one standard deviation increase in

community social capital was associated with a 0.75 standard deviations increase in

friend contact, a 0.51 standard deviations increase in coworker contact, and a 0.67

standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. The strongest loading for this

dimension of social capital was friend contact, although all three loaded fairly strongly.

The most variance explained by the community field was friend contact, with an R-

square of 0.56. Community social capital explained 26 percent of the variance in

coworker contact, and 45 percent of the variance in hanging with friends.

Finally, all indicators loaded positively and significantly for the political field for

women. A one standard deviation increase was associated with a 0.62 standard

deviations increase in rally, a 0.51 standard deviations increase in public interest groups,

a 0.41 standard deviations increase in petition, and a 0.31 standard deviations increase in

166
neighborhood association. Rally had the strongest loading, followed closely by public

interest groups. The R-squares for how well each was predicted by the political field

followed the same pattern as the standardized Beta loadings. Thirty-eight percent of the

variation in rally was explained by one’s political social capital. While, 26 percent of the

variation in public interest groups was explained by the political field. However, only 17

percent of the variation in petition, and 10 percent of the variation in neighborhood

association was explained by political social capital.

(0.43,[22.13], 0.88) Volunteer Religious
(V2) E2

Religious (0.27,[15.76],0.59) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(0.13,[9.73],0.35) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.19,[20.69],0.75)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(7.99,[14.10],0.51) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(12.37,[18.90],0.67 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.24,[15.18],0.62 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.01,[12.25],0.51)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.20,[10.13],0.41)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.13, [7.57],0.31)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.13. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Women, model 1, (unstandardized b, [t-
statistic], standardized Beta)Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.03,GFI 0.99, NFI 0.95

167
 Using Bourdieu’s social capital model for men in the sample, the religious

domain covaried with the community domain with an estimate of 0.11,71 with a

significant t-score of 3.32; the political domain covaried with the religious domain with

an estimate of 0.36 which was significant with a t-score of 10.39; and finally the

community domain covaried with the political domain with an estimate of 0.20 and a t-

score of 5.42.

For men in the sample, all indicators loaded significantly and positively on the

religious field, t-scores ranged from 8.05 to 19.26. A one standard deviation increase in

religious social capital was associated with a 0.86 standard deviations increase in

volunteer religious, a 0.64 standard deviations increase in religious membership, and a

0.33 standard deviations increase in religious groups. The most variance explained by

the religious field, as with women, was volunteer religious, 75 percent. Forty percent of

the variance in religious membership was explained by religious social capital, where

only 11 percent of the variance in religious groups was explained by the religious field.

All indicators loaded positively and significantly for the community field as well

with t-scores ranged from 15.70 to 19.98. A one standard deviation increase in

community social capital was correlated with a 0.76 standard deviations increase in

friend contact, a 0.61 standard deviations increase in coworker contact, and a 0.62

standard deviations increase in hanging with friends. The strongest loading for this

dimension of social capital was friend contact, although all three loaded fairly strongly.

The most variance explained by the community field was friend contact, with an R-

square of 0.58. Community social capital explained 36 percent of the variance in

coworker contact, and 38 percent of the variance in hanging with friends. Slightly less
71
Reported here are the covariances for the latent domains’ standardized estimates.

168
was explained by community social capital for men than women on hanging with friends,

however, slightly more was explained by community social capital for men when

compared with women for friend contact and coworker contact.

(0.40,[19.26], 0.86) Volunteer Religious

(V2) E2

Religious (0.31,[15.27],0.64) Religious

Field (D1) Membership (V19) E19

(0.13,[8.05],0.33) Religious Groups E22

(V22)

Community (14.93,[19.98],0.76)
Field (D2) Friend Contact E42
(10.48,[15.90],0.61) (V42)
CoWorker Contact
(V43) E43

(10.85,[15.70],0.62 ) Hanging with E44

Friends (V44)
Political
Field (D3)
(0.23,[13.98],0.61 )

Rally (V16)
E16
(0.19,[14.55],0.61)
Public Interest
Groups(V27) E27
(0.20,[9.38],0.42)
Petition (V15)
E15
(0.15, [7.76],0.35)
Neighborhood Assoc.
(V5) E5

Figure 5.14. Bourdieu’s Social Capital Model for Men, model 2, (unstandardized b, [t-
statistic], standardized Beta) Fit Indexes: SRMSR 0.04, GFI 0.98, NFI 0.94

Finally, all indicators loaded positively and significantly for the political field for

men. A one standard deviation increase was associated with a 0.61 standard deviations

increase in rally, a 0.61 standard deviations increase in public interest groups, a 0.42

standard deviations increase in petition, and a 0.35 standard deviations increase in

169
neighborhood association. Therefore an increase in political social capital was

associated with men in the sample attending more rallies, public interest groups, signing

more petitions, and participating more in their neighborhood. Rally had the strongest

loading, followed closely by public interest groups. Both rally and public interest

groups loaded at the same strength (0.61). The R-squares for how well each was

predicted by the political field showed that 37 percent of the variation in rally was

explained by one’s political social capital. While, 38 percent of the variation in public

interest groups was explained by the political field. However, only 17 percent of the

variation in petition, and 12 percent of the variation in neighborhood association was

explained by political social capital.

For indicators of the religious field there were very few differences between men

and women in the structure of social capital for that context. There was a slightly

stronger loading for women (0.43) on volunteer religious than for men (0.40) which

correlated to a 2 percent increase for women more than men in the percent of variation

explained by religious social capital for this indicator. The largest difference was for

religious membership, women (0.27) had slightly weaker loading than men (0.31). Using

the R-square for this sample we can say that 5 percent more of the variation in religious

membership was explained by the religious field for men when compared to women.

Both men and women were essentially the same on the religious groups indicator.

When looking at community social capital in the sample for men and women

there were some important differences. First, men (14.93) and women (14.19), loaded

very similarly along friend contact. This was supported by the R-square which showed a

slight increase in explained variation for men (2%) more than women. However, men

170
(10.48) had a higher loading on coworker contact versus women (7.99). Further, the R-

square comparison showed that 10 percent more of the variation in coworker contact was

explained by community social capital for men than women. Conversely, women (12.37)

loaded stronger for spending more time hanging out socially with their friends than men

(10.85), this was also supported by an R-square difference of seven percent.

Finally, for the political field, men and women were strikingly similar, with one

exception: men (0.19) had a significantly stronger loading for activity in public interest

groups than women (0.01). The R-square showed that 12 percent more of the variation in

the indicator public interest groups was explained by the political field for men than for

women.

171
 CHAPTER VI

SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION

This study evaluated Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s approaches to social

capital empirically. In addition, it examined these empirical models for differences

across class, race, and gender in regard to the structure of social capital for each model.

These empirical evaluations were conducted using the national sample from the SCCBS.

Each theoretical approach was modeled using latent domains and manifest indicators.

The benefit of using these methods was that the abstract nature of social capital could be

modeled and evaluated. Although a number of recent researchers have reported

differences across class, race, and gender with regard to social capital (Aguilera 2002;

Parks-Yancy et al 2008), none have modeled all three theorists separately, and used CFA

and multi-sample SEM to evaluate the clear theoretical and latent aspects associated with

social capital as was done here.

Using CFA, evidence was found to support (see Chapter 4) three separate models

of social capital for Putnam, Coleman and Bourdieu. For each theorist, indicators for

each domain and model loaded positively and significantly with t-tests much higher than

2.0. While each model had a significant chi-square, Coleman and Bourdieu had better

chi-square ratios and each model was found through fit indexes to fit. Thus, support was

found for Research Question one, that each theorists’ approach to social capital could be

modeled empirically.

172
 The second Research Question is: Does the structure of social capital operate

differently along class, race and gender lines for Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s

empirically supported social capital models? The following hypotheses were used to test

and answer this question for each social capital model created in Chapter 4, first, that

there would be differences in the structure of social capital across class groups; second,

that there would be differences found in the structure of social capital across race groups;

and third, that differences in the structure of social capital would be found across gender

groups. However, when each model was run across socio-demographic categories using

multi-sample SEM, the LR test was not always significant across. As a result, some

hypotheses were supported and some were not depending on the model. Specifically,

significant differences were found for class and race, but not gender for Putnam’s social

capital model. However, for Coleman’s model the only socio-demographic group

showing any structural differences in social capital was race. Finally, all socio-

demographic groups tested significantly for structural differences using Bourdieu’s

model of social capital.

The following chapter discusses these results, their implications, and the

limitations of each model by theorist. After which I discuss the contributions of the

current study, followed by the limitations across all models, and ending with suggestions

for future research.

Putnam: Summary of Results

Putnam’s social capital model included domains for bonding social capital,

bridging social capital and trust. According to Putnam (2000), trust is important in that it

173
underlies the norm of reciprocity and at the community level allows for people to give

others “the benefit of the doubt” (Putnam 2000:136). However, Putnam (2000) does not

conceive of trust as a separate concept per se, but an indicator for social capital. It was

therefore interesting that trust did not load in the EFA on either bonding or bridging

social capital domains, but emerged instead as its own latent domain. Further, while

Putnam (2000) spoke of trust in terms of “thick” or “thin”, only one domain emerged for

trust, not two. This finding is based on the social trust index which had a general and

then more specific contextual instances of trust included in the measure. Beyond that,

two other measures of more specific trust were used as indicators on the trust domain,

perception of community trust and rate your community. While the fact that trust

emerged as its own domain does not fully answer the question of where trust fits into the

picture of Putnam’s social capital fully, it does add to our understanding. This finding

supports conceptualizing and measuring trust with social capital, but as a separate

domain, not as part of bonding or bridging social capital. It also suggests that while the

two are connected, (trust and social capital), they are not the same. Thus this finding

adds to the understanding of what social capital is and what it is not.

Using Putnam’s model for social capital, there were class differences in the

structure of social capital showing support for the first hypothesis under Research

Question two, that there will be class differences in the structure of social capital. The

major difference in the structure of social capital was in the middle class results, where

not only was the strength of the social capital indicators diminished, but the tests of

significance were as well. The most surprising difference for the middle class was that

the family contact indicator on the bonding domain was not significant. Putnam

174
(2000:277) cites the family as a “key form of social capital” and links the loss of the

traditional family structure to decrease in religious and youth or PTO memberships.

Further he remarks upon how families spend less time together vacationing, watching TV

together, going to religious services as a family, and spending less time together relaxing.

Here for the middle class, it was their friends and the people they shared confidences with

who were important for the bonding social capital domain. This finding could be an

indicator of the mobility of the middle class in 2000 (Putnam 2000), it is possible that

because of job relocation or schooling that those in the middle class were not close

enough to have in person contact with family members. Increasingly the family needs

two incomes to survive and thrive economically and this could also be influencing the

time that families have to make contact or visit their family. This finding for the middle

class suggests that bonding and bridging social capital do not operate in the same way

across class groups.

Putnam’s model also showed significant differences in the structure of social

capital on racial categories, supporting the second hypothesis. The results showed that

Non-Whites in the sample had higher levels of social capital on the bonding, bridging,

and trust domains when compared with Whites, with one important difference. For

Whites family contact loaded significantly on the bonding domain, however, it was not

significant at all for Non-Whites. Therefore, for Non-Whites in the sample, family

contact was not important to the structure of the bonding social capital domain. For this

group, the most important structural aspects include their friends and the people with

whom they share confidences. This finding supports to some extent the findings of Stack

(1974) of the importance of friend and acquaintance networks to minorities.

175
 It was expected that there would be significant differences in the structure of

social capital for gender groups (see Hypothesis three, Chapter two). However, for

Putnam’s model, the LR test was not significant, showing no support for this hypothesis.

This is counter to findings in the literature showing differences in social capital by gender

(Demant and Jarvinen 2011; DiTomaso et al. 2007; Noris and Inglehart 2006; Parks-

Yancy et al. 2008; Wellman and Frank 2001).

In particular, Norris and Inglehart (2006) used Putnam’s conceptualization of

social capital in their study and found gendered effects. They looked at membership and

volunteerism in organizations and trust as social capital. When examining membership

and volunteerism among groups, it was found that there were gender differences in most,

but not all groups, showing some “sex segregation.” The only types of groups that did

not show significant differences or a gender gap were education, arts, music, or cultural

activities. There was a small, but significant gender gap when looking at membership

and trust, however, the gender gap for membership was smaller in postindustrial

societies.

Putnam (2000), however, does not conceive of a gendered social capital, although

he does test social capital along socio-demographic lines. In fact, for his health and

happiness chapter, he finds that,

connections with social capital persisted even when the studies examined
other factors that might influence mortality, such as social class, race,
gender, smoking, and drinking, obesity, lack of exercise, and
(significantly) health problems…what these studies tell us is that social
engagement actually ahs an independent influence on how long we live
(Putnam 2000:331).

It is not that he thinks gender is unimportant, nor that there could not be differences along

gender lines (or class or race, etc.) for social capital, but instead, he has yet to include

176
class, race, and gender in his theory of social capital. The model in this study focused on

his theoretical writings for social capital and attempted to model specifically his bonding,

bridging and trust domains. It is possible that part of the reason that there are not any

significant differences in the structure of social capital for gender is in the structure of the

model.

Does this mean that there are no gender differences in the structure of social

capital? Absolutely not, in fact gender differences were found when using Bourdieu’s

social capital model (see below for discussion). However, what it does mean is that for

this sample there are no structural differences in social capital between men and women

when using Putnam’s social capital model.

Limitations of Putnam’s Model

While trust emerged as its own domain for Putnam, it did not do so as “thin” and

“thick” trust. That only one latent domain emerged may be because the measures

themselves were too broad and encapsulated both “thick” and “thin” trust within them.

Another possibility is that it is not so much what kind of trust one holds, but that

generalized trust is held by the group and therefore there is only one latent domain related

to trust. A study using data with measures that can fully capture the conceptualization of

trust as “thin” and “thick” should test to see if these load on one domain or two. Due to

data constraints this cannot be addressed directly in the current study.

It was difficult to measure bonding and bridging social capital as distinct

concepts. In part, the difficulty in measuring Putnam may be because this study went off

of his theory on bonding and bridging social capital and attempted to model them as

177
distinct domains. While Putnam theorizes about these aspects of social capital, he does

not see them as completely distinct and thus did not attempt to measure them as separate

concepts (Putnam 2000). Unfortunately, the one important distinction, exclusive versus

inclusive groups,72 was not used because of issues with reliability of the scales. Knudsen

et al (2007) found through EFA that they could have two factors on the group

involvement index by exclusionary and inclusionary aspect of the organization itself.

However, when this study attempted to use their scales for exclusive groups versus

inclusive groups, the Alpha of reliability for each was around 0.30, meaning that 70

percent of the variance was measurement error. And further, when the inclusive and

exclusive group scales were included with the trust domain, both scales loaded on the

same latent domain. Thus, it was concluded that their findings were lost when other

aspects of social capital were introduced and their measures were deemed unreliable and

thus not retained for modeling.

For the current study, the best third variable for bonding social capital domain

was family contact. However, this variable loaded weakly and is considered a limitation

for the Putnam model. In future studies it is recommended that a different measure or

measures be used in its place. In particular, time spent having a family meal, vacation

time with family, doing activities with family, and going to family for support (both

emotional and instrumental (Lin 1999)) would be useful to measure family in terms of

social capital.

It would make more sense, if this is the crux of Putnam’s social capital model, to

distinguish between the two sufficiently that one can measure each. It stands to reason

72
Putnam (2000) uses the idea of inclusive groups being reflective of bonding social capital and exclusive
(hard to attain membership or tied to a particular identity) group membership as a way to identify
bridging social capital.

178
that one could lead to another, and that they are intimately connected, but for this

conceptualization to be a truly useful scientific tool for our understanding of social

capital both theoretically and empirically, reliable and valid measures need to be included

that are clearly one versus the other. For example, creating measures that include

whether the tie is exclusive or inclusive in nature, (e.g., anyone can join this group versus

only certain people can join). A deeper examination would include measuring on which

aspect the exclusion is based, such as race, gender, age, region, or income.

Implications of Results for Future Research: Putnam

It can be argued that there was in truth very little difference between class groups

using Putnam’s model, and therefore, the original results from chapter four should stand

in its stead, regardless of the LR test being significant. However, the finding that for the

middle class family was not a significant indicator for bonding social capital, though

small, shows a potentially important difference for the middle class and challenges a

basic assumption that the family is a universal wellspring of social capital. The results

presented here, however, are not conclusive. Further testing using various methods and

other samples to confirm and support the results found in this model are needed. Also,

the sample size for the middle class group was lower at 263 than either that of the lower

or upper social class groups (see Table 5.1), therefore, this finding was potentially

associated with a loss of statistical power due to a smaller sample size (Allison 1999;

Bollen 1989). In any case, it is interesting that for the middle class in this sample their

main relationship focus was on non-family members. Future research should test for this

179
relationship instead of assuming the importance of family on this dimension of social

capital for the middle class.

For race, it was found that for Non-Whites, bonding and bridging social capital as

well as trust were more important structurally. The only aspect for which this did not

hold was for family contact. This indicator was more important to Whites, it would be

interesting in future research to look at this finding at the intersection of race and class to

see if there are further distinctions in the structure of the bonding social capital domain

and specifically family contact. Putnam (2000) argues that the bonds of the family are

“loosening.” But whether that is the case or the way in which family is bonding has

changed, one cannot determine accurately with the current data. Future studies may

want to explore how families stay linked, communicate, and bond. For example,

technology plays an important role in the way in which we stay connected, Facebook,

LinkedIn, and Skype are examples. The latter could be a part of why certain groups are

not visiting family as often. Simply because the structure of the family no longer reflects

a 1950s era does not mean that its role in social capital has diminished. These other ways

of communicating and bonding need to be fully explored and examined to determine

whether the family is truly “loosening” or simply shifting and adapting to new

environmental challenges and technologies.

As will be discussed below, there is only one model in the study that showed

significant differences in the structure of social capital for gender. Therefore, it is not

that there are no differences in the structure of social capital by gender, but that these

differences are contextual. This argument is supported by the fact that the one model that

did show structural differences by gender was Bourdieu’s social capital model, which

180
included the use of the field concept. By definition field is tied to context. Parks-Yancy

et al. (2008) for example found that men and women had different kinds of ties and

assumed then that they also had different resources. Men in general had more work ties,

whereas women tended to have more ties to family and personal friends. Putnam (2000)

also noted that women and men had different ties, but that when women started working

full-time the differences were subdued somewhat because of time restraints.

The fact that no significant differences were found for gender groups means that

for this socio-demographic group bonding, bridging, and trust domains were neither more

important for men than women and vice versa. This does support the argument that

researchers examining gender as an important variable along with social capital should

consider using a different model and theoretical framework. Based on the findings,

Bourdieu’s model would be best because it was the one model that showed important

differences for gender groups.

Coleman: Summary of Results

Coleman’s social capital model included the domains of expectation/obligations

(E/O), information channels (IC), and social norms (SN) (Coleman 1988). An argument

was made to include different trust indicators for the SN domain, the same ones in fact

that were used to measure trust for Putnam’s model. This makes theoretical and

empirical sense when one considers that Putnam (2000) also talks about social capital in

terms of trust and social norms. The Coleman model fit well and was subjected to multi-

sample SEM analysis for class, racial, and gender groups (see Chapters 4 and 5).

181
 Interestingly, only one significant LR test was found for Coleman’s model

supporting the second hypothesis that there were differences in the structure of social

capital for race. What this means is that Coleman’s model captures social capital

differently for Whites and Non-Whites. Therefore, his model allows us to examine

which aspects of social capital were more important for Non-Whites and those that were

more important to Whites.

Using Coleman’s model, on the E/O domain, indicators such as diverse

relationships and group involvement tells us about E/O social capital more so for Non-

Whites than for Whites. This means that having diverse relationships and being involved

in groups was more important for Non-Whites’ social capital than for Whites’. However,

other church participation was more important for Whites than for Non-Whites. Both

shared similar structure on the club meetings indicator. In sum, fictive kin was more

important for Non-Whites than Whites on the IC domain, but both groups were similar in

terms of knowing someone who owns their own business. The latter is interesting

because Aguilera (2002) found important differences on race specifically for black men

and white women. It may be that if the interaction between race and class were examined

for Coleman those differences would emerge. Finally, having a friend who owns their

own vacation home was more important for Whites than Non-Whites. These findings

support the argument that it matters who you know and your connections can help

structurally with one’s social capital; in this case, one’s social capital along the IC

domain.

On the SN domain, Non-Whites loaded slightly stronger on perception of

community trust than Whites and had stronger loadings on the trust domain than Whites.

182
Thus, the structure of one’s E/O varied by race, and specifically, perception of trust in

one’s community was more important for Non-Whites than Whites in the sample. Non-

Whites had stronger loadings on social capital on the IC domain than Whites and thus

structurally were advantaged in terms of that domain. The same was true for the SN

domain for Non-Whites.

As evidenced by the findings for Coleman’s model, hypotheses one and three did

not find support, however, evidence was found to support differences in the structure of

social capital by racial groups (hypothesis two). These findings support those of Aguilera

(2002) who found that race and class both mattered for Whites and Non-Whites when

considering social capital. But in particular that Non-Whites and Whites were able to

gain more from having different forms of social capital.

Limitations of Coleman’s Model

It is particularly surprising that there were no class differences for Coleman’s

model of social capital because his empirical analysis takes into account material

resources. However, his analysis looked at the transformation of social capital into

economic or human capital and the subsequent consequences therein, e.g. parent

involvement on children’s success in school (Coleman 1988). It is possible that the

current analysis does not have indicators to measure the transference from one capital to

another and that is why there were not differences. For example, Coleman (1988)

examined the social capital that children drew from their parents; part of the resources

that their parents provided to their children was in the form of their human capital (e.g.,

183
education). However, it was not possible to use education as a measure for class because

the sample size dipped below 200 in the multi-sample SEM model.

Clearly human capital is omitted from the analysis. One could argue that the class

analysis at the very least does bring in income as a material resource, and thus it is

particularly surprising result. It is also possible that the measures were so broad (e.g., the

measures for income did not include interval level data, but categories) and thus the

differences were masked. There was no problem with the sample size for his model, and

it fit very well in the CFA analysis, moreover, when one looked at the overall fit indexes

in the multi-sample SEM, the model fit the data well.

One serious limitation to Coleman’s social capital model was the lack of family

measure(s) in the dataset. The one available to include, family contact, did not load

significantly on any of the three domains in the EFA73 and when included in the CFA to

test, the fit was worse than without it. Theoretically, it makes sense to include a measure

of family within Coleman’s model, especially since he views the family as the nexus of

social capital. However, the measures available did not approximate his measures used,

time spent with children doing homework as one example (1988), and the closest

approximation to family that fit with the model was fictive kin.

73
When family contact was included in the analysis it loaded at 0.30 on a fourth domain. Unfortunately
this domain did not have any indicators load significantly (0.40 or above) and combined with the fact
that the scree plot did not show support, it was not included in the analysis. Moreover, there were no
other useful family measures to include to examine if their inclusion would change the results and
potentially allow us to see how family as social capital would work or not in the model. The CFA chi-
square ratio was 3.5:1 and other indices were below 0.90. The better fit was without the indicator
included, but it is only because of its lack of holding with the other indicators on the EFA combined
with its influence on the model fit in the CFA that this indicator was not included in the Coleman model
for social capital.

184
Implications of Results for Future Research: Coleman

Neither class, nor gender had significant LR tests and those findings were thus

excluded from the analysis. Instead the original findings in chapter four stand for both

class groups and gender groups for the structure of social capital using Coleman’s model.

Coleman’s conceptualization of social capital is one of the most common in the social

sciences and while these findings are not conclusive, they do suggest that Coleman’s

model of social capital does not tell us more about class and gender groups. It is

therefore important for future research concentrating on social capital and class that

Coleman’s model potentially does not capture differences on social capital for income

groups. The same holds true for studies where social capital and gender are the main

focus. However, these findings do suggest that Coleman’s model of social capital does

provide important information on the structural differences of social capital for racial

groups. Future studies concentrating on social capital and race may find his

conceptualization useful for study.

Bourdieu: Summary of Results

Bourdieu’s social capital model was based not only on his concept of social

capital within his larger theory of inequality, but also on his concept of field. This is

where using a dataset that examines social capital specifically was very useful. The three

fields that emerged from the analysis discussed Chapter 4 were religious, community, and

political. Throughout the dissertation field and domain were used interchangeably.

The LR test was significant for each socio-demographic group, supporting the

three hypotheses that there were significant differences in the structure of social capital

185
across class, race, and gender groups. Bourdieu’s social capital model was the one social

capital model upon which the socio-demographic group’s differences were found to be

significant for all three socio-demographic groups: class, race, and gender. This meant

that there were significant differences on the structure of social capital for each group. It

also suggests that his model provides us with more information about the structural

differences for different socio-demographic groups.

For the lower and middle classes, the indicators for the religious domain loaded

negatively and significantly. However, for the upper class, the predictions were similar

in strength to the lower and middle classes, but were positive in direction. The middle

class in particular had a stronger negative loading on all three indicators (volunteer

religious, religious membership, and religious groups) than the lower class.74 It is

interesting that for the lower and middle classes there would be a negative association for

religious indicators on the religious field. Is there in fact a negative return structurally on

social capital in the religious field for those who are in the lower and middle classes? Is

this because the people who gain the most from the religious field are those who have

more material resources? The latter is possible considering that recent research has

shown (Greenfield 2013) that those who make more money actually give proportionately

less to charity than those who make less (when one looks at the percent of income gifted).

It is also possible that those at the upper income levels give more dollars and thus gain

social capital from that aspect, having to participate less with more return on their social

capital. These findings show support for including context and specifically the use of

field when examining social capital.

74
This finding was unexpected, therefore, the models were checked, rechecked (in terms of indicator
coding and model coding), and then subjected to multi-sample SEM on class again to confirm the
results.

186
 The middle class had the weakest loading for social capital structurally on the

community field versus both upper and lower classes. Whereas the lower class had the

strongest loadings for social capital structurally on the community field with regard to

going out with friends, coworkers, or contact with friends. It would be interesting to look

at these results based on hours worked or having a job at all and break it down further to

see if that had something to do with the strength of loadings for this type of social capital

and the lower class, perhaps it was a simple issue of time. It is possible that those in the

middle class spend so much time at work that hanging out after work with friends or

otherwise was difficult to fit in (Aguilera 2002; Putnam 2000). It is also possible that this

is in part a consequence of the finding in an earlier Putnam model looking at bonding

social capital and specifically family contact. Americans like to move upward, promoted

by credit card companies and our consumer culture, and thus many people are living

outside of their means. Further that with a need to keep up with others in one’s group

(Field 2008), and a competitive nature for those who have made great gains in their

professional careers, or are able to have professional careers as opposed to jobs and it

makes some sense that the middle class would have potentially less social capital

structurally on the community domain. Moreover, it would be interesting to see if a

middle class where family contact is not significant at all to the bonding domain has any

bearing on the finding that the middle class has weaker social capital structurally on the

community domain.

There were significant, but very few differences in the structure of social capital

between Whites and Non-Whites on Bourdieu’s social capital model. Whites had slightly

weaker loadings for contact with friends when compared with Non-Whites and slightly

187
weaker loading on time spent socially with friends than Non-Whites. What this means is

that using Bourdieu’s social capital model captured structural differences for Whites and

Non-Whites in social capital. Here for example, contact with friends and spending time

socially with friends was more important for Non-Whites than Whites in the sample.

However, contact with coworkers was more important for Whites than Non-Whites. For

the political field Whites and Non-Whites were essentially the same, however, there was

a slightly stronger loading on neighborhood association for Non-Whites than Whites,

meaning that neighborhood association tells us more about Non-Whites than Whites in

the sample.

The most striking difference in the structure of social capital between Whites and

Non-Whites for Bourdieu’s model was on the domain of religion. Here again the study

found negative relationships on all indicators for the religious domain, but only for

Whites in the sample. Conversely, Non-Whites in the sample had positive and significant

relationships for all indicators on the religious domain. The strength of the relationship

was similar, but the direction was opposite, suggesting a negative relationship for Whites

on social capital within the religious domain. Possible reasons for this finding may

include that there were more Whites in the sample who were either lower or middle class

and there may have been an embedded interaction effect that was not tested in this study.

It is also possible that Whites’ experience in the religious field based on these indicators

leads to weaker returns in their social capital because of another status that is not

accounted for in this study. A concept not used explicitly in this study, but important to

Bourdieu, was that of social space and the importance of status or one’s position. While

racial status was accounted for, perhaps there were others that interact with race and may

188
have some bearing on this finding. It may be a conflation of the type of religious

institution(s) one belongs to, Catholic versus Protestant, or even the density of the

membership therein that is affecting these results. In any case, it is very interesting that

Non-Whites, for this model and sample, were able to garner stronger loadings in this field

than Whites. These findings support that overall social capital was more important

structurally for Non-Whites than Whites in the sample.

Interestingly, the only model for which differences between men and women were

significant was for Bourdieu’s social capital model. There were very few differences

between men and women in the structure of social capital for the religious domain. For

women, volunteer religious, was more important than for men. The largest difference

was for religious membership which told us more about men than women. For men

being a member of a religion was more important to their social capital. Is it possible that

the reason behind this finding is that the power structure of most mainstream religions

favors men over women (Shaw and Lee 2012: 621)? Putnam found that married people

and especially those with children were more likely to be involved in religion and

religious organizations, but very little was said about whether men gained more for the

structure of their social capital than women.

When looking at the community domain, the indicator of friend contact was

similar for both men and women. However, there were some important differences on

this domain for gender groups. For example, having contact with coworkers was more

important for men than for women in the sample. This is not surprising as most research

shows that men tend to go out more socially with their work contacts (Norris and

Inglehart 2006). Also, the results showed that for women time spent hanging with their

189
friends was more important than for men. This finding was somewhat different from

Norris and Inglehart’s (2006) findings that men overall spent more time outside of the

home than women. They attributed the difference to the constraints on most women from

traditional gender roles and the work of home and family. Norris and Inglehart (2006)

used global data from multiple societies and thus this may be a difference in nationality

and gender roles, showing that America (2000) was slightly less traditional in terms of

gender roles than the average world citizen.

Limitations of Bourdieu’s Model

One indicator on the community domain for Bourdieu, coworker contact, had

missing that was more than 30 percent. When the missing was compared against

dummied variables for class, race, and gender, all three chi-squares were significant

showing that there was some selection bias for the missing. The current study used

listwise deletion, but this is a limitation because it introduced bias into the model.

Initially the fact that Bourdieu’s conceptualization of social capital was

underdeveloped was a limitation. However, while a limitation, the fact that Bourdieu was

somewhat of an unknown was also a strength because more of an exploratory approach

could be used which produced a model that allowed for the examination of differences in

the structure of social capital across all three groups.

Implications of Results for Future Research: Bourdieu

Future studies should test the negative relationships found when using Bourdieu’s

social capital model. In particular, it was odd that the religious field had negative returns,

190
not to mention the negative returns to Whites. What these findings suggest is that social

capital had a negative return, or it took away from, these groups versus others. Further

research needs to be conducted to corroborate these findings before any real conclusions

can be made.

These findings suggest, however, that using Bourdieu’s conceptualization of

social capital combined with field provides a fertile framework for understanding and

examining social capital among socio-demographic groups. This is slightly surprising

considering that his theory focuses more on cultural capital. However, it is clear using

the current study as a point of reference, that his conceptualization of social capital when

used with field reveals important differences in the structure of social capital for all three

socio-demographic groups examined here. While his writings did not center on social

capital, he did value both agency and structure and above all the concept of context in

social space (Bourdieu 1980[1990], 1984, 1986).

Contributions

There are three important contributions that this dissertation provides. First, the

findings help with the greater question of what is social capital. Context has been shown

to be important (Knudsen et al. 2008; Lin 2001; Nieminen et al. 2008; Parks-Yancy et al.

2008), this study illustrates how the structure of social capital differs across class, race,

and gender groups. Moreover, the findings reported here show that the differences are in

fact influenced by the way in which one conceives and models social capital. For

example, neither Putnam’s model nor Coleman’s model showed significant differences

for gender groups, however, Bourdieu’s model did. Therefore, if one wishes to

191
understand structural differences along gender groups in social capital then one should

utilize Bourdieu’s conception of social capital combined with field. Bourdieu’s model

performed best in representing a framework that allowed for the various structural

differences to be seen for gender groups. That is not to say that Putnam’s and Coleman’s

models were not useful, but the models were not consistent. For example, Bourdieu’s

model was the only model that found differences for all three socio-demographic groups.

In sum, the findings reported also support the assertion made early on in the dissertation

that social capital operates differently across socio-demographic groups and further

provides a detailed account of the structural differences in social capital by socio-

demographic group and theoretical model.

Second, this project takes a foundational approach to social capital. It does not

assume that the definitions being used for social capital are the same and instead begins

with conceptualizing social capital using established theoretical threads within the study

of social capital separately including Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s

conceptualizations of social capital. The three theorists’ conceptualizations were then

used to create three separate empirical models, where rigorous analysis and testing were

performed; the results of which illustrate differences between these three

conceptualizations of social capital that in turn influence the findings.

In essence I have provided one method for conceptualizing and operationalizing

social capital using confirmatory factor analysis and multi-sample structural equation

modeling guided by specific theorists. Applying theorists individually to frame the data

revealed the nuanced differences between the three theorists which are often ignored in

the literature.

192
 Third, and finally, this dissertation provides multi-dimensional models based on

theory for use potentially across samples. For example, the SCCBS collected data from

various years and thus analysis can be extended to include those years as well as change

models examining differences from one year to the next. How far reaching these models

can be used has yet to be determined, however, these three models potentially can be

used in future research using similar indicators.

Limitations Across Models

One limitation of the current study was that some of the variables included for

analysis were dichotomous. However, it was deemed more important to have three

indicators to load per domain (Hatcher 1994; Bollen 1989); for the current study the

measures chosen were the best available in the dataset, SCCBS.

Further, secondary data was used in the analysis. The SCCBS was uniquely

suited to the task, but cross-sectional survey data by definition only allows a small

snapshot in time (Allison 1999). Quantitative analysis also does not allow for as much

explanatory analysis as does qualitative data. The benefit to using survey data and the

SCCBS in particular is that the sample size is large (3003) and when dealing with a study

that had skip patterns in it, a loss in some data did not adversely affect the sample size.

Also, the fact that this study was created for the sole purpose of measuring social capital

lent itself to the goals of this study. It would also have been both interesting and useful to

further the understanding of social capital and Putnam’s, Coleman’s, and Bourdieu’s

conceptualization of it; to use both quantitative and qualitative data to examine the

structure of social capital across class, race, and gender groups.

193
 It also must be mentioned that some bias in terms of the ability to measure the

three approaches of social capital was introduced by the fact that Robert Putnam was on

the committee that created the survey instrument and measures therein. While the

empirical evidence did not support a bias, Coleman and Bourdieu’s models fit better than

Putnam’s, it is nonetheless an important aspect of the study.

Suggestions For Future Research

Future researchers may want to consider adding education and occupational

prestige to the measure of social class. The best available measure for social class in the

current dataset was income. There was a measure for education, but none for

occupational prestige. Unfortunately, when education was added to create the class sub-

samples in the multi-sample SEM, the sample size dipped below 200 for each model.

The sample size for SEM needs to have a minimum of 200 observations to be considered

(Hatcher 1994). Thus, income was used as a measure for social class in the current study,

but it is recommended that both measures for education and occupational prestige are

included in future studies.

As shown in the limitations, survey research has its drawbacks, as does using

SEM. Future studies may wish to use only interval-ratio data when modeling social

capital in CFA and SEM in general. Whenever possible, scales, indexes, continuous,

and/or likert scale style questions were used for the current study. However, in order to

overcome the various drawbacks to survey data in general, a future study on social capital

may wish to use both qualitative and quantitative data. Specifically I think it would be of

use to collect in-depth interviews from all the subgroups examined in the current study.

194
These interviews could ask questions in person with follow-up probes that seek to find

the answer to why social capital matters more to one groups than another. Included in the

interview should be questions or prompts attempting to understand the role that context

and need play with regard to the importance of social capital to one group over another.

For example, in this way we could find the reasons behind the finding that social capital

was more important for Non-Whites in the sample than for Whites. In order to do a true

comparison both Non-Whites and Whites would need to be included in the qualitative

data. While focus groups might give us a larger picture, it would not be as in depth and I

would argue that a more in depth analysis of why religious membership is more

important to men than women is needed as opposed to the broader picture which was

presented in the current analysis.

Finally, it would behoove any qualitative research following this line of inquiry to

ask questions specifically seeking further elucidation on the fundamental question, what

is social capital. Each interview could ask a series of questions that could be tailored for

the respondent’s identity and position in social space. Some examples of questions that

might help us to understand social capital at a deeper level would be: When your child is

sick or has a day off from school how do you manage that with a full-time job? Who do

you go to for advice in your job [life] [family] [relationships]? What would you consider

a social resource? What does it mean to feel safe in your community? Where do you go

for support when you need it? Does the kind of support you are looking for influence

who you go to? Why? Why did you move into the community that you live in now?

What are your dreams for yourself and your family? How do you plan to achieve those

dreams? What sort of resources do you have to do that? The questions should be open-

195
ended and delve into the way in which people actively seek and give support to one

another. Other types of qualitative analysis that would be useful would be a content

analysis (of local papers across the country, what sorts of stories headline locally? How

many community events are being held throughout the year? What sort of language is

being used when talking about the community, events, etc.); and ethnography. Again, the

purpose here would not be to generalize, but to understand social capital at a deeper level.

It is interesting to note that without fail, the structure of social capital varied for

race on every model: Putnam, Coleman, and Bourdieu. Aguilera’s (2002) study further

supports these findings and the assertion that race in America still produced differences

between groups in 2000. It would be interesting for future research to examine what

types of differences exist within these groups as well and extend the current analysis to

include the intersection of race on class and gender.

The findings from this study were revealing, however, in order to have more

confidence in the results, it would make sense to do validation. This can be done by

testing for the results using different methods and other samples. It is possible that

changing the sample or method used could produce a different result(s). Thus, it is

recommended that further research be conducted on the issues raised to find support or

elucidate the differences across class, racial, and gender groups on the structure of social

capital.

While the current study is limited to the measures available to it in the SCCBS,

future studies may want to look at the differences in gender in a more specific context by

expanding the definition and categories available to the concept of gender. This study

focused on the male/female division, but future studies may wish to dissect the structural

196
differences in social capital along gender lines further by including transsexuals, or even

perhaps add in a measure for sexuality as well.

197
 REFERENCES

Abbas, Tahir. 2002. “The Home and the School in the Educational Achievements of
South Asians’.” Race Ethnicity and Education. 5: 291 – 316.

Agresti, Alan. 1981. “Measures of Nominal-Ordinal Association.” Journal of the

American Statistical Association. 76: 524-529.

Aguilera, Michael Bernabe. 2002. “The Impact of Social Capital on Labor Force
Participation: Evidence from the 2000 Social Capital Benchmark Survey.” Social
Science Quarterly. 83: p.853-874.

Alder, Paul S. and Seok-Woo Kwon. 2002. “Social Capital: Prospects for a New
Concept.” Academy Management Review. 27:17-40.

Allison, Paul D. 1999. Multiple Regression, A Primer. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge
Press.

Anderson, J.C. and D. W. Gerbing. 1988. “Structural Equation Modeling in Practice: A

Review and Recommended Two-Step Approach.” Psychological Bulletin. 103:
411-423.

Bassani, Cherylynn. 2007. “Five Dimensions of Social Capital Theory as They Pertain to
Youth Studies.” Journal of Youth Studies. 10: 17-34.

Bebbington, Anthony, Scott Guggenheim, Elizabeth Olson, and Michael Woolcock.

2004. “Exploring Social Capital Debates at the World Bank.” The Journal of
Development Studies. 40:33-64.

Bentler, P.M. and Douglas G. Bonett. 1980. “Significance Tests and Goodness of Fit in
the Analysis of Covariance Structures.” Psychological Bulletin. 88: 588-606.

Bentler, P.M. and Douglas G. Bonett. 1989. EQS Structural Equations Program Manual.
Los Angeles: BMDP Statistical Software.

Beugelsdijk, S., & Smulders, S. 2003. Bridging and Bonding Social Capital: Which Type
Is Good for Economic Growth?, in W. Arts, J. Hagenaars, & L. Halman (Eds.),
The cultural diversity of European unity, pp. 147-184. Leiden: Brill.

198
Blau, Peter M. 1994. “The Process of Stratification.” Pp. 317-346 in Social
Stratification: Class, Race, and Gender in Sociological Perspective, edited by
David B. Grusky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bollen, Kenneth A. 1989. Structural Equations with Latent Variables. New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Bourdieu, Pierre. 1977. Outline of a Theory of Practice. London: Cambridge

University Press.

-----1980. “Le Capital Social: Notes Provisoires.” Actes de la Recherche en

Sciences Sociales. 2-3.

-----1980 [1990]. The Logic of Practice. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University

Press.

-----1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. Cambridge,

Mass.: Harvard University Press.

-----1986. “Forms of Capital.” Pp. 241-58 in Handbook Theory and Research for
the Sociology of Education, edited by John G. Richardson. Westport, CT.:
Greenwood Press.

-----1997. “The Forms of Capital.” Pp. 46-58 in Education: Culture, Economy, Society,
edited by A. Halsey, H. Lauder, P. Brown, and S. Wells. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.

-----2002 [1991]. “Social Space and Symbolic Space.” Pp. 267-275 in

Contemporary Sociological Theory, edited by Craig Calhoun et al. Oxford:
Blackwell.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant . 1992. An Invitation to Reflexive Sociology.

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Bourdieu, Pierre and Loïc Wacquant . 1999. “On the Cunning of Imperialist
Reason.”Theory, Culture & Society. 16: 41-58.

Briggs, X. S. 1998. “Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many
Faces of Social Capital.” Housing Policy Debate. 9: 177-221.

Burt, R. S. 1976. “Positions in Networks.” Social Forces. 55:93-122.

-----1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Cambridge, MA:

Harvard University Press.

199
Byrne, Barbara M. 2010. Structural Equation Modeling With AMOS: Basic Concepts,
Applications, and Programming, 2ed. New York, NY: Rutledge.

Campbell, Catherine. 2000. “Social Capital and Health: Contextualizing Health

Promotion within Local Community Networks.” Pp. 182-196 in Social Capital:
Critical Perspectives, edited by Stephen Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller.
New York: Oxford University Press.

Campbell, K.E., P. V. Marsden, and J. S. Hurlbert. 1988. “Social Resources and Socio-
Economic Status.” Social Networks. 8:97-116.

Carr, Deborah. 2002. “The Psychological Consequences of Work-Family Trade-Offs for

Three Cohorts of Men and Women.” Social Psychology Quarterly.65: 103-124.

Cloud, W. and R. Granfield. 2008. “Conceptualizing Recovery Capital: Expansion of a

Theoretical Construct.” Substance Use and Misuse. 43: p.1971-1986.

Cohen, Bernard P. 1989. Developing Sociological Knowledge: Theory and Method, 2nd
Ed. Chicago, Il: Nelson-Hall Inc.

Coleman, James S. 1988. ”Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.”

American Journal of Sociology. 94: S95-S120.

-----1986. “Social Theory, Social Research, and a Theory of Action.” The American
Journal of Sociology.91: 1309-1335.

-----1990. Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge: The Belknap Press

of Harvard University Press.

Cook, Karen S. (ed.). 2001. Trust in Society. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Cook, Karen S., Eric R. W. Rice, and Alexandra Gerbasi. 2004. “The Emergence of Trust
Networks under Uncertainty: The Case of Transitional Economies—Insights from
Social Psychological Research.” Pp. 193-212 in Creating Social Trust in Post-
Socialist Transition, edited by Janos Kornai, Bo Rothstein, and Susan Rose-
Ackerman. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Corcoran, M. 1995. “Rags to Rags: Poverty and Mobility in the United States.” Annual
Review of Sociology. 21:237-267.

Cote S, Healy, T. (2001) The Well-being of Nations. The role of human and social
capital.Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris.

Curtis, James, William McTeer, and Philip White. 2003. “Do High School Athletes Earn
More Pay? Youth Sport Participation and Earnings as an Adult.” Sociology of
Sport Journal. 20: 60-76.

200
Demant, Jakob and Margaretha Jarvinen. 2011. “Social Capital As Norms and Resources:
Focus Groups Discussing Alcohol.” Addiction Research and Theory. 19: p. 91-
101.

De Graaf, Nan Dirk and Hendrik Derk Flap. 1988. “‘With a Little Help from My
Friends’: Social Resources as an Explanation of Occupational Status and Income
in West Germany, The Netherlands, and the United States.” Social Forces. 67:
452-472.

DiTomaso, Nancy, C. Post, R. D. Smith, G. F Farris, and R. Cordero. 2007. “Effects of

Structural Position on Allocation and Evaluation Decisions for Scientists and
Engineers in Industrial Rand.” Administrative Science Quarterly. 52: 175-207.

Doane, Woody. 2003. “Rethinking Whiteness Studies.” Pp. 3-18 in White Out: The
Continuing Significance of Racism, edited by Ashley W. Doane and Eduardo
Bonilla-Silva. New York: Routledge.

Durkheim, Emile. 1973. Moral Education: A Study in the Theory and Application of the
Sociology of Education. New York: Free Press.

-----1997. The Division of Labor in Society. New York: Free Press.

Eastis, Carla M. 1998. “Organizational Diversity and the Production of Social Capital.”
American Behavioral Scientist. 42: 66-77.

Elman, Cheryl. 1996. “Old Age, Economic Activity, and Living Arrangements in the
Early-Twentieth-Century United States.” Social Science History. 20:439-468.

Elster, Jon. 2003. “Coleman on Social Norms.” Revue francaise de sociologie. 44: 297-
304.

Farr, James. 2004. “Social Capital: A Conceptual History.” Political Theory. 32: p. 6-33.

Feagin, Joe R. and Karyn D. McKinney. 2003. The Many Costs of Racism. New York,
NY: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc.

Field, John. 2003. Social Capital. New York: Routledge.

Fine, Ben. 2001. Social Capital Versus Social Theory: Political Economy and Social
Science at the Turn of the Millennium. New York: Routledge.

Fischer, Claude, Micahel Hout, Martin S. Jankowski, Same Lucas, Anne Swidler, and
Kim Voss. 1996. Inequality by Design: Cracking the Bell Curve Myth. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press.

201
Francis, B. & Archer, L. (2005) “British-Chinese pupils’ and parents’ constructions of
the value of education.” British Educational Research Journal. 31:89-108.

Friedkin, Noah. 1980. “A Test of Structural Features of Granovetter’s Strength of Weak

Ties Theory.” Social Networks. 2:411-422.

-----1981. “The Development of Structure in Random Networks: An Analysis of the

Effects of Increasing Network Density on Five Measures of Structure.” Social
Networks. 3:41-52.

-----1982. “Information Flow Through Strong and Weak Ties in Intraorganizational

Social Networks.” Social Networks. 3:273-285.

Fritzell, J., M. Nermo, and O. Lundberg. 2004. “The Impact of Income: Assessing the
Relationship Between Income and Health in Sweden.” Scandinavian Journal of
Public Health. 32: 6-16.

Gabbay, S. M. and E. W. Zuckerman. 1998. “Social Capital and Opportunity in

Corporate R & D: The Contingent Effect of Contact Density on Mobility
Expectations.” Social Science Research. 27:189-217.

Gittell, Marilyn, Isolda Ortega-Bustmante, and Tracy Steffy. 2000. “Social Capital
and Social Change: Women’s Community Activism.” Urban Affairs
Review. 36:123-147.

Goulbourne, H. and J. Solomos. 2003. “Families, Ethnicity and Social Capital.” Social
Policy and Society. 2:329-338.

Gouldner, Alvin W. 1960. “The Norm of Reciprocity: A Preliminary Statement.”

American Sociological Review. 25: 161-178.

Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of

Sociology.78: 1360-1380.

-----1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, 2nd ed.

Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

Greenfield, Patricia. 2013. “The Changing Psychology of Culture From 1800 to 2000.”
Psychological Science. 24: 1722-1731.

Grootaert, Christiaan, Deepa Narayan, Veronica Nyhan Jones, and Michael Woolcock.
2004.“Measuring Social Capital: An Integrated Questionnaire.” World Bank
Paper no. 18.

202
Halpern, David. 2005. Social Capital. Malden, MA: Polity Press.

Harpham, Trudy, Emma Grant, and Elizabeth Thomas. 2002. “Measuring Social Capital
Within Health Surveys: Key Issues.” Health Policy and Planning. 17: 106-111.

Hatcher, Larry. 1994. A Step-by-Step Approach to Using SAS for Factor Analysis and
Structural Equation Modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Publishing.

Herd, Pamela and Madonna Harrington Meyer. 2002. “Care Work: Invisible Civic
Engagement.” Gender and Society. 16:665-688.

Herreros, Francisco. 2004. The Problem of forming social capital: Why Trust? New
York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

Horton, Nicholas J. and Ken P. Kleinman. 2007. “Much Ado About Nothing: A
Comparison of Missing Data Methods and Software to Fit Incomplete Data
Regression Models.” The American Statistician. 61: 79-90.

Howell, David C. 2007. “The Analysis of Missing Data.” In Handbook of Social Science
Methodology, edited by W. Outhwaite and S. Turner. London: Sage.

Hoyle, Rick H. ed. 1995. Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and
Applications. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1995. “Evaluating Model Fit.” Pp. 76-99, in R. H. Hoyle, Ed.,
Structural Equation Modeling: Concepts, Issues, and Applications. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage.

Huber, Franz. "Social Capital of Economic Clusters: Towards a Network-Based

Conception of Social Resources.” Economic Geography Research Group,
Working Paper Series No.02.08. 2009-08-31
http://www.egrg.org.uk/pdfs/egrg_wp0208.pdf.

James, L.R., S. A. Mulaik, and J. M. Brett. 1982. Causal Analysis. Beverly Hills, CA:
Sage.

James, Sherman A., Amy J. Schulz, and Juliana van Olphen. 2001. “Social Capital,
Poverty, and Community Health: An Exploration of Linkages.” Pp. 165-188 in
Social Capital and Poor Communities, edited by Susan Saegert, J. Phillip
Thompson and Mark R. Warren. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Joreskog, K.G. and D. Sorbom. 1989. LISREL 7: A Guide to the Program and
Application, 2nd Ed. Chicago, Il.: SPSS Inc.

203
Kaufman, Jason and David Weintraub. 2004. “Social-Capital Formation and American
Fraternal Association: New Empirical Evidence.” Journal of Interdisciplinary
History. 35:1-36.

Kline, Rex B. 2011. Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd Ed.
New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

Krais, Beate. 1993. “Gender and Symbolic Violence: Female Oppression in the Light of
Pierre Bourdieu’s Theory of Social Practice,” Pp. 156-177 in Bourdieu: Critical
Perspectives, edited by Craig Calhoun, Edward LiPuma and Moishe Postone.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Knudsen, Brian, Richard Florida, and Denise Rousseau. 2007. “Bridging and Bonding: A
Multi- Dimensional Approach to regional Social Capital.”
http://www.rotman.utoronto.ca/userfiles/prosperity/File/Bridging_and_Bonding.
w.cover.pdf (2008-09-23).

Kolankiewicz, George. 1996. “Social Capital and Social Change.” The British Journal of
Sociology. 47:427-441.

Kooistra, Paul. "Bend it Like Bourdieu: Class, Gender and Race in American Youth
Soccer." Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Marriott Hotel, Loews Philadelphia Hotel, Philadelphia, PA, Aug
12, 2005. 2009-03-05 http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p21892_index.html.

Krackhardt, D. and J. R. Hanson. 1993. “Informal Networks and Organizational Crises:

An Experimental Simulation.” Harvard Business Review. 71:104-111.

Ladson-Billings, Gloria. 1994. The Dreamkeepers: Successful Teachers of African

American Children. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lamont, Michele. 2012. “How Has Bourdieu Been Good To Think With? The Case of
the United States.” Sociological Forum. 27: 228-237.

Lamont, Michele and Annette Lareau. 1988. “Cultural Capital Allusions, Gaps, and
Glissandos in Recent Theoretical Developments.” Sociological Theory. 6:153-
168.

Lareau, A. 2000. Home Advantage. New York: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers,
Inc.

Lin, Nan. 1999. “Social Networks and Status Attainment.” Annual Review of Sociology.
25: 467-487.

-----2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.

204
-----2004. “The Invisible Hand of Social Capital.” Conference Paper, American
Sociological Association: San Franscico, Ca.

Lin, Nan and M. Dumin. 1996. “Access to Occupations Through Social Ties.” Social
Networks. 8:365-385.

McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and Matthew E. Brashears. 2006. “Social

Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades.”
American Sociological Review. 71: 353-375.

MacDonald, John and Robert J. Stokes. 2006. “Race, Social Capital, and Trust in the
Police.” Urban Affairs Review. 41:358-375.

MacLeod, Jay. 1995. Ain’t No Makin’ It: Aspirations and Attainment in a Low-Income
Neighborhood. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Malinowski, Bronislaw. 1932. Crime and Custom in Savage Society. London: Paul,
Trench, Trubner.

Maloney, William A., Graham Smith, and Gerry Stoker. 2000. “Social Capital and
Associational Life.” Pp. 212-225 in Social Capital: Critical Perspectives, edited
by Stephen Baron, John Field, and Tom Schuller. New York: Oxford University
Press.

Marsden, Peter V. and Jeanne S. Hulbert. 1988. “Social Resources and Mobility
Outcomes: A Replication and Extension.” Social Forces. 1038-1059.

Messner, Steven F., Eric P. Baumer and Richard Rosenfeld. 2004. “Dimensions of Social
Capital and Rates of Criminal Homicide.” American Sociological Review. 69:
882-903.

Mitsztal, Barbara A. 1996. Trust in Modern Societies: The Search for the Bases of Social
Order. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Mouw, Ted. 2003. “Social Capital and Finding a Job: Do Contacts Matter?” American
Sociological Review. 68:868-898.

Nieminen, Tarja, Tuija Martelin, Seppo Koskinen, Jussi Simpura, Erkki Alanen, Tommi
Harkanen, and Arpo Aromaa. 2008. “Measurement and Socio-Demographic
Variation of Social Capital in a Large Population-Based Survey.” Social
Indicators Research. 85:405–423.

Norris, Pippa and Ronald Inglehart. 2006. “Gendering Social Capital: Bowling in
Women’s Leagues?” Pp. 73-98 in Gender and Social Capital, edited by Brenda
O’Neill and Elisabeth Gidengil. New York: Routledge.

205
O’Neill, Brenda, and Elisabeth Gidengil (ed.). 2006. Gender and Social Capital. New
York: Routledge.

Parcel, Toby L. and Elizabeth G. Menaghan. 1993. “Family Social Capital and Children’s
Behavior Problems.” Social Psychology Quarterly. 56:120-135.
-----1994. “Early Parental Work, Family Social Capital, and Early Childhood Outcomes.”
American Journal of Sociology. 99:972-1009.

Parks-Yancy, Rochelle, Nancy DiTomaso, and Corinne Post. 2008. “Reciprocaol

Obligations in the Social Capital Resource Exchanges of Diverse Groups.”
Humanity & Society. 32:238-262.

Peterson, Lizette. 1980. “Development Changes in Verbal and Behavioral Sensitivity to

Cues of Social Norms of Altruism.” Child Development. 51: 830- 838.

Peng, Yusheng. 1992. “Wage Determination in Rural and Urban China: A Comparison of
Public and Private Industrial Sectors.” American Sociological Review. 57: 198-
213.

Portes, Alejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern
Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology. 24:1-24.

-----2000. “The Two Meanings of Social Capital.” Sociological Forum.

15:1-12.

Portes, Alejandro and Patricia Landolt. 2000. “Social Capital: Promise and Pitfalls of its
Role in Development.” Journal of Latin American Studies. 32:529-547.

Portis, E. B. 1985. “Theoretical Interpretation From a Social Scientific Perspective: An

Example From Max Weber.” Social Science Quarterly. 66: 505-518.

Prell, C. and J. Skvoretz. (2008). “Looking at Social Capital Through Triad Structures.”
Connections 28, 2: 4-16.

Putnam, Robert D. 1993. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern

Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

-----2000. Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American

Community. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

----- 2001. Social Capital Benchmark Survey, 2000. Storrs, CT: Roper Center.

Putnam, Robert D. (Ed.). 2002. Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in
contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press U.S.

206
-----2013. “Crumbling American Dreams.” The New York Times. Accessed on November
12, 2013 at http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/03/crumbling-
american-dreams/?_r=1.

Rahn, Wendy M. and Thomas J. Rudolph. 2005. “A Tale of Political Trust in American
Cities.” Public Opinion Quarterly. 69: p. 530-560.

Raju, Das. 2004. “Social Capital and Poverty of the Wage-Labour Class: Problems with
the Social Capital Theory.” Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers.
29: 27-45.

Roschelle, Anne R. 1997. No More Kin: Exploring Race, Class, and Gender in Family
Networks. London: Sage.

Rothstein, Bo. 2005. Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. New York: Cambridge
University Press.

SAS Institute Inc. 1989. SAS/STAT Users Guide, Version 6, Fourth Ed., Volume 1. Cary,
NC: SAS Institute Inc.

Shaw, Susan M. and Janet Lee. 2012. Women’s Voices Feminist Visions: Classic and
Contemporary Readings, 5th ed. McGraw Hill.

Silva, Elizabeth B. and Rosalind Edwards. 2007. “Operationalizing Bourdieu on Capitals:

A Discussion on ‘The Construction of the Object’”, Accessed on July 21, 2012 at
http://www.ccsr.ac.uk/methods/publications/documents/WP7_000.pdf.

Smaje, Chris. 1997. “Not Just a Social Construct: Theorising Race and Ethnicity.”
Sociology. 31: 307-327.

Smith, Sandra S. 2000. “Mobilizing Social Resources: Race, Ethnic, and Gender
Differences in Social Capital and Persisting Wage Inequalities.” Sociological
Quarterly. 41:509-537.

Stack, Carol B. 1974. All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community. New
York: Harper & Row.

Stephen, Morgan L. and Aage B. Sorensen. 1999. “Parental Networks, Social Closure,
and Mathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation of
School Effects.” American Sociological Review. 64:661-681.

Temkin, K. and W. M. Rohe. 1998. “Social Capital and Neighborhood Stability:

An Empirical Investigation.” Housing and Policy Debate. 9 (1): 61-88.

207
Thapar, Suruchi and Gurchathen S. Sanghera. 2010. “Building Social Capital and
Education: The Experiences of Pakistani Muslims in the UK.” International
Journal of Social Inquiry. 3: 3-24.

Wamala, Sarah, Johanna Ahnquist, and Anna Mansdotter. 2009. “Research Article: How
Do Gender, Class and Ethnicity Interact To Determine Health Status?” Journal of
Gender Studies.18: 115-129.

Warren, Mark R., J. Phillip Thompson, and Susan Saegert. 2001. “The Role of Social
Capital in Combating Poverty.” Pp. 1-28 in Social Capital and Poor
Communities, edited by Susan Saegert, J. Phillip Thompson and Mark R. Warren.
New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Weber, Max. [1922] 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology
edited by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley and Los Angeles:
University of California Press.

-----[1921] 1968. Economy and Society. 3 Vols. Totowa, NJ: Bedminster Press.

-----1946. “Class, Status, and Party.” Pp. 180-195 in From Max Weber: Essays
in Sociology edited by H. H. Gerth and C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford
University Press.

-----1949. The Methodology of the Social Sciences, edited by Edward Shils and Henry
Finch. New York: Free Press.

Wellman, Barry and Kenneth A. Frank. 2001. “Network Capital in a Multilevel World:
Getting Support from Personal Communities,” Pp. 233-273 in Social Capital:
Theory and Research, edited by Nan Lin, Karen Cook, and Robert S. Burt. New
York: Aldine De Gruvter.

White, Michael J. and Gayle Kaufman. 1997. “Language Usage, Social Capital, and
School Completion Among Immigrants and Native-Born Ethnic Groups.” Social
Science Quarterly. 78: 385-398.

Willem, Annick and Harry Scarbrough. 2006. “Social Capital and Political Bias in
Knowledge Sharing: An exploratory study.” Human Relations. 59:1343-1370.

Willis, P. 1977. Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs.
Westmead, England: Saxon House.

Wilson, William Julius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban
Poor. New York: Vintage Books.

Woolcock, M.. (2001) The place of social capital in Understanding Social and Economic
Outcomes. ISUMA Canadian Journal of Policy Research 2 (1) 11-17.

208
Yee, Julie L. and Debbie Niemeier. 1996. “Advantages and Disadvantages: Longitudinal
vs. Repeated Cross-Section Surveys, A Discussion Paper.” Project Battelle 94-16.
http://ntl.bts.gov/lib/6000/6900/6910/bat.pdf

Yip, Winnie, S.V. Subramanian, Andrew D. Mitchell, Dominic T. S. Lee, Jian Wang,
Ichiro Kawachi. 2007. “Does Social Capital Enhances Health and Well-being?
Evidence From Rural China.” Social Science & Medicine. 64: 35-49.

Zhang, Saijun, Steven G. Anderson, and Min Zhan. 2011. “The Differential Impact of
Bridging and Bonding Social Capital on Economic Well-being: An Individual
Level Perspective.” Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 38:119-142.

Zhou, M. and C. Bankston, III. 1994. “Social Capital and the Adaptation of the Second
Generation: The Case of Vietnamese Youth in New Orleans.” International
Migration Review. 28: 821-845.

Zippay, Allison. 2001. “The Role of Social Capital in Reclaiming Human Capital: A
Longitudinal Study of Occupational Mobility among Displaced Steelworkers.”
Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare. 28: 99-119.

209
APPENDICES

210
 APPENDIX A

SOCIAL CAPITAL COMMUNITY BENCHMARK SURVEY MEASURES FOR

SOCIAL CAPTIAL BY THEORIST

PUTNAM
BONDING SOCIAL CAPITAL DOMAIN

Friends:

Q53. Now, how about friends? About how many CLOSE FRIENDS do you have these
days? These are people you feel at ease with, can talk to about private matters, or call on
for help. Would you say that you have no close friends, one or two, three to five, six to
ten, or more than that?
<FRIENDS>
1 No close friends
2 1-2 close friends
3 3-5 close friends
4 6-10 close friends
5 More than 10 close friends
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Shared confidences:

Q. 54. Right now, how many people do you have in your life with whom you can share
confidences or discuss a difficult decision – nobody, one, two, or three or more?
(INTERVIEWER NOTE: INCLUDES FAMILY)
<CONFIDE>
1 Nobody
2 One
3 Two
4 Three or more
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
Family Contact:

Q. 56D. (How many times in the past 12 months have you) visited relatives in person or
had them visit you? (GIVE RESPONDENT A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THE
ANSWER.

211
IF RESPONSE IS 53 OR GREATER, ENTER 53)
<CFAMVISI>
VALID RANGE 0 to 53
__
98 Don’t Know
99 Refused
BRIDGING SOCIAL CAPITAL DOMAIN
Diversity scale:

Q.55. Thinking now about everyone that you would count as a PERSONAL FRIEND,
not just your closest friends—do you have a personal friend who…

PROGRAMMING: PARTS A-K IN RANDOM ORDER

Q.55A. Owns their own business?
<BBS>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55B. Is a manual worker? (IF NECESSARY: Works in a factory, as a truck driver, or

as a laborer.)
<BWORKER>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55C. Has been on welfare?

<BWELF>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q. 55D. Owns a vacation home?

<BVACH>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55E. [coded to signify, has personal friend with a different religious orientation]
(IF <RELIG>=1) Is not Protestant?
(IF <RELIG>=2) Is not Catholic?
(IF <RELIG>=3) Has a different religion than you?

212
(IF <RELIG>=4) Is not Jewish?
(IF <RELIG>=5) Has a different religion than you?
(IF <RELIG>>5) You consider to be very religious?
<BREL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q. 55F. Is White?
<BWHT>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55G. Is Latino or Hispanic?

<BHISP>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q. 55H. Is Asian?
<BASN>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55I. Is Black or African American?

<BBLK>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55J. Is Gay or Lesbian?

<BGAY>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.55K. You would describe as a community leader?

<BLEADER>

213
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Group involvement scale:
Q.33. Now I’d like to ask about other kinds of groups and organizations. I’m going to
read a list; just answer YES if you have been involved in the past 12 months with this
kind of group. (BEGIN LIST)
(NOTE: SCHOOL YEAR INVOLVEMENT/SCHOOL ORGANIZATIONS SHOULD
BE INCLUDED)

Q.33A. (IF Q30=1 DISPLAY: Besides your local place of worship,) Any organization
affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or B’nai B’rith (BA-NAY
BRITH), or a bible study group?
<GRPREL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33B. (How about) An adult sports club or league, or an outdoor activity club.
<GRPSPORT>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33C. (How about) A youth organization like youth sports leagues, the scouts, 4-H
clubs, and Boys & Girls Clubs.
<GRPYOUTH>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33D. A parents’ association, like the PTA or PTO, or other school support or service
groups.
<GRPPTA>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33E. A veteran’s group.

<GRPVET>
1 Yes

214
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33F. A neighborhood association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant

association, or a crime watch group.
<GRPNEI>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33G. Clubs or organizations for senior citizens or older people.

<GRPELD>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33H. A charity or social welfare organization that provides services in such fields as
health or service to the needy.
<GRPSOC>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33I. A labor union.

<GRPLAB>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33J. A professional, trade, farm, or business association.

<GRPPROF>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33K. Service clubs or fraternal organizations such as the Lions or Kiwanis or a local
women’s club or a college fraternity or sorority. (NOTE: Includes Alumni Organizations)
<GRPFRAT>
1 Yes

215
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33L. Ethnic, nationality, or civil rights organizations, such as the National

Organization for Women, the Mexican American Legal Defense or the NAACP?
<GRPETH>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33M. Other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party
committees.
<GRPPOL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33N. A literary, art, discussion or study group or a musical, dancing, or singing group.
<GRPART>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33O. Any other hobby, investment, or garden clubs or societies.

<GRPHOB>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33P. A support group or self-help program for people with specific illnesses,
disabilities, problems, or addictions, or for their families.
<GRPSELF>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33Q. Are you involved in any group that meets only over the Internet.
<GRPWWW>
1 Yes
0 No

216
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33R. And do you belong to any other kinds of clubs or organizations?

<GRPOTHER>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Worked with others: Q.52. In the past two years, have you worked with others to get
people in your immediate neighborhood to work together to fix or improve something?
<NEICOOP>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
TRUST DOMAIN
SOCIAL TRUST INDEX:
Q.6. Now, I want to ask you some questions about how you view other people. Generally
speaking, would you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful
in dealing with people?
<TRUST>
1 People can be trusted
2 You can’t be too careful
3 (VOLUNTEERED) Depends
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7. Next, we’d like to know how much you trust different groups of people. First, think
about (GROUP). Generally speaking, would you say that you can trust them a lot, some,
only a little, or not at all?
(GROUP:)

Q.7A. People in your neighborhood

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRNEI>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7B. (How about) People you work with (would you say that you can trust them a lot,
some, only a little, or

217
not at all?)
(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRWRK>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7C. People at your church or place of worship

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRREL>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7D. People who work in the stores where you shop

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRSHOP>
1 Trust them a a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7F. The police in your local community

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRCOP>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
(IF RACOPT=0, SKIP TO 8A)

Rate your community:

218
Q.14. Overall, how would you rate your community as a place to live — excellent, good,
only fair, or poor?
<QOL>
1 Excellent
2 Good
3 Only Fair
4 Poor
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
Perception of community trust:
Q.11. Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about the local community where you live.
If public officials asked everyone to conserve water or electricity because of some
emergency, how likely is it that people in your community would cooperate — would
you say it is very likely, likely, unlikely, or very unlikely?
<COOP>
1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 (VOLUNTEERED) Neither/Depends
4 Unlikely
5 Very Unlikely
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

COLEMAN
EXPECTATION/OBLIGATION DOMAIN
Group involvement scale:
PROGRAMMING: RANDOM ORDER A-O, KEEPING K-M TOGETHER, KEEPING
N-O TOGETHER, ITEM R SHOULD ALWAYS BE LAST
Q.33A. (IF Q30=1 DISPLAY: Besides your local place of worship,) Any organization
affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or B’nai B’rith (BA-NAY
BRITH), or a bible study group?
<GRPREL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33B. (How about) An adult sports club or league, or an outdoor activity club.
<GRPSPORT>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33C. (How about) A youth organization like youth sports leagues, the scouts, 4-H
clubs, and Boys & Girls Clubs.

219
<GRPYOUTH>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33D. A parents’ association, like the PTA or PTO, or other school support or service
groups.
<GRPPTA>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33E. A veteran’s group.

<GRPVET>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33F. A neighborhood association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant

association, or a crime watch group.
<GRPNEI>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33G. Clubs or organizations for senior citizens or older people.

<GRPELD>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33H. A charity or social welfare organization that provides services in such fields as
health or service to the
needy.
<GRPSOC>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33I. A labor union.

220
<GRPLAB>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33J. A professional, trade, farm, or business association.

<GRPPROF>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33K. Service clubs or fraternal organizations such as the Lions or Kiwanis or a local
women’s club or a college fraternity or sorority. (NOTE: Includes Alumni Organizations)
<GRPFRAT>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33L. Ethnic, nationality, or civil rights organizations, such as the National

Organization for Women, the Mexican American Legal Defense or the NAACP?
<GRPETH>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33M. Other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party
committees.
<GRPPOL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33N. A literary, art, discussion or study group or a musical, dancing, or singing group.
<GRPART>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33O. Any other hobby, investment, or garden clubs or societies.

221
<GRPHOB>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33P. A support group or self-help program for people with specific illnesses,
disabilities, problems, or addictions, or for their families.
<GRPSELF>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Q.33Q. Are you involved in any group that meets only over the Internet.
<GRPWWW>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Q.33R. And do you belong to any other kinds of clubs or organizations?

<GRPOTHER>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Other church participation: Q.32. In the past 12 months, have you taken part in any sort
of activity with people at your church or place of worship other than attending services?
This might include teaching Sunday school, serving on a committee, attending choir
rehearsal, retreat, or other things.
<RELPART1>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Club meetings: Q.56E. (How many times in the past twelve months have you) attended a
club meeting? (GIVE RESPONDENT A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THE
ANSWER. IF RESPONSE IS 53 OR GREATER, ENTER 53)
<CCLUBMET>
VALID RANGE 0 to 53
__
98 Don’t Know
99 Refused
INFORMATION CHANNELS DOMAIN
Fictive kin:

222
Q.49. How many other adults, if any, do you treat as members of your family even
though they are not related to you? (IF NECESSARY: These are people who are
regularly included in family gatherings and celebrations, and who may be called "uncle"
or "aunt" although they are not.) (INTERVIEWER NOTE: IF RESPONSE IS 10 OR
GREATER, ENTER 10)
<NONFAM>
VALID RANGE 0-10
__
98 Don’t know
99 Refused

Business owner:

BBUS 55A. Has personal friend who owns a business

Missing Values: 8, 9
0 No
1 Yes
8 M Don’t know
9 M Refused
Vacation home:
BVACH 55D. Has personal friend who owns a vacation home
Missing Values: 8, 9
0 No
1 Yes
8 M Don’t know
9 M Refused
SOCIAL NORMS DOMAIN
Rate your community:
Q.14. Overall, how would you rate your community as a place to live — excellent, good,
only fair, or poor?
<QOL>
1 Excellent
2 Good
3 Only Fair
4 Poor
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
Perception of community trust:
Q.11. Now I’d like to ask you a few questions about the local community where you live.
If public officials asked everyone to conserve water or electricity because of some
emergency, how likely is it that people in your community would cooperate — would
you say it is very likely, likely, unlikely, or very unlikely?
<COOP>
1 Very likely
2 Likely
3 (VOLUNTEERED) Neither/Depends

223
4 Unlikely
5 Very Unlikely
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Social trust index:

Q.6. Now, I want to ask you some questions about how you view other people. Generally
speaking, would
you say that most people can be trusted or that you can’t be too careful in dealing with
people?
<TRUST>
1 People can be trusted
2 You can’t be too careful
3 (VOLUNTEERED) Depends
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7. Next, we’d like to know how much you trust different groups of people. First, think
about (GROUP). Generally speaking, would you say that you can trust them a lot, some,
only a little, or not at all?
(GROUP:)

Q.7A. People in your neighborhood

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRNEI>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
Q.7B. (How about) People you work with (would you say that you can trust them a lot,
some, only a little, or
not at all?)
(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRWRK>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

224
Q.7C. People at your church or place of worship
(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRREL>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7D. People who work in the stores where you shop

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRSHOP>
1 Trust them a a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused

Q.7F. The police in your local community

(CLARIFY IF NECESSARY: How about in general?)
<TRCOP>
1 Trust them a lot
2 Trust them some
3 Trust them only a little
4 Trust them not at all
5 (VOLUNTEERED) Does not apply
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
(IF RACOPT=0, SKIP TO 8A)

BOURDIEU
RELIGIOUS FIELD DOMAIN
Volunteer religious:
Q.59. I’m going to list some of the types of organizations where people do volunteer
work. Just tell me whether you have done any volunteer work for each in the past twelve
months.
PROGRAMMING RANDOMIZE A-F

Q.59A. (SKIP UNLESS RELMEM=1) For your place of worship

<VOLREL>
1 Yes
0 No

225
8 Don’t Know
9 Refused
Religious membership:
Q.30. Are you a MEMBER of a local church, synagogue, or other religious or spiritual
community?
<RELMEM>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Religious groups:
Q.33A. (IF Q30=1 DISPLAY: Besides your local place of worship,) Any organization
affiliated with religion, such as the Knights of Columbus or B’nai B’rith (BA-NAY
BRITH), or a bible study group?
<GRPREL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
COMMUNITY FIELD DOMAIN
Friend contact:
Q.56F. (How many times in the past twelve months have you) had friends over to your
home?
(GIVE RESPONDENT A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THE ANSWER.
IF RESPONSE IS 53 OR GREATER, ENTER 53)
<CFRDVIST>
VALID RANGE 0 to 53
__
98 Don’t Know
99 Refused
Hanging with friends:
Q.56I. (How many times in the past twelve months have you) hung out with friends at a
park, shopping mall, or other public place?
(GIVE RESPONDENT A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THE ANSWER.
IF RESPONSE IS 53 OR GREATER, ENTER 53)
<CFRDHANG>
VALID RANGE 0 to 53
__
98 Don’t Know
99 Refused
Coworker contact:
Q.56H. (How many times in the past twelve months have you) socialized with coworkers
outside of work?
(GIVE RESPONDENT A MOMENT TO THINK ABOUT THE ANSWER.
IF RESPONSE IS 53 OR GREATER, ENTER 53)
<CJOBSOC>

226
VALID RANGE 0 to 53
__
98 Don’t Know
99 Refused
POLITICAL FIELD DOMAIN
Rally:
Q.26B. Attended a political meeting or rally?
<RALLY>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Public Interest:
Q.33M. Other public interest groups, political action groups, political clubs, or party
committees.
<GRPPOL>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

Petition:
Q.26A. Have you signed a petition?
<PETITION>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused
Neighborhood association:
Q.33F. A neighborhood association, like a block association, a homeowner or tenant
association, or a crime watch group.
<GRPNEI>
1 Yes
0 No
8 Don’t know
9 Refused

227
 APPENDIX B

BIVARIATE CORRELATION MATRIXES BY THEORIST

Putnam’s Model Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 1445 (Variable names:

V2=Friends; V3=Shared Confidences; V27= Family Contact; V9= Diversity;
V20=Group Involvement; V25= Worked With Others; V7 Social Trust Index; V22=
Perception of Community Trust; V31= Rate Your Community) Prob > |r| under H0:
Rho=0.
V2 V3 V27 V9 V20 V25 V7 V22 V31

V2 1.00000 0.41696 0.10858 0.28621 0.13257 0.03870 0.24594 0.15150 0.15235

<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.1415 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V3 0.41696 1.00000 0.12350 0.23035 0.13059 0.06669 0.27617 0.09478 0.15269

<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0112 <.0001 0.0003 <.0001

V27 0.10858 0.12350 1.00000 0.14074 0.08157 0.04814 0.07765 0.01385 0.05820
<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.0019 0.0673 0.0031 0.5989 0.0270

V9 0.28621 0.23035 0.14074 1.00000 0.39689 0.20034 0.18346 0.03642 0.12868

<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.1664 <.0001

V20 0.13257 0.13059 0.08157 0.39689 1.00000 0.27545 0.13192 0.02633 0.12554
<.0001 <.0001 0.0019 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 0.3173 <.0001

V25 0.03870 0.06669 0.04814 0.20034 0.27545 1.00000 0.05528 0.00930 0.04897
0.1415 0.0112 0.0673 <.0001 <.0001 0.0356 0.7239 0.0628

V7 0.24594 0.27617 0.07765 0.18346 0.13192 0.05528 1.00000 0.30847 0.41181

<.0001 <.0001 0.0031 <.0001 <.0001 0.0356 <.0001 <.0001

V22 0.15150 0.09478 0.01385 0.03642 0.02633 0.00930 0.30847 1.00000 0.33163
<.0001 0.0003 0.5989 0.1664 0.3173 0.7239 <.0001 <.0001

V31 0.15235 0.15269 0.05820 0.12868 0.12554 0.04897 0.41181 0.33163 1.00000
<.0001 <.0001 0.0270 <.0001 <.0001 0.0628 <.0001 <.0001

Coleman’s Model Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 1257 (Variable Names: V8=

Rate Your Community; V9=Perception of Community Trust; V10=Social Trust Index;
V12= Fictive Kin; V15=Group Involvement; V16= Other Church Participation;
V21=Club Meetings; V27= Business Owner; V28= Vacation Home) Prob > |r| under H0:
Rho=0.
V8 V9 V10 V12 V15 V16 V21 V27 V28

V8 1.00000 0.31941 0.41170 0.05158 0.11948 0.10902 0.10561 0.12396 0.14479

<.0001 <.0001 0.0675 <.0001 0.0001 0.0002 <.0001 <.0001

V9 0.31941 1.00000 0.29510 0.02750 0.00418 0.08317 0.04441 0.00363 0.05100

<.0001 <.0001 0.3299 0.8822 0.0032 0.1156 0.8978 0.0707

228
 V8 V9 V10 V12 V15 V16 V21 V27 V28

V10 0.41170 0.29510 1.00000 0.02443 0.12994 0.17534 0.14392 0.15608 0.16293
<.0001 <.0001 0.3867 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V12 0.05158 0.02750 0.02443 1.00000 0.12796 0.06642 0.07852 0.12802 0.08672
0.0675 0.3299 0.3867 <.0001 0.0185 0.0053 <.0001 0.0021

V15 0.11948 0.00418 0.12994 0.12796 1.00000 0.35903 0.43482 0.29341 0.27810
<.0001 0.8822 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V16 0.10902 0.08317 0.17534 0.06642 0.35903 1.00000 0.20381 0.14724 0.12284
0.0001 0.0032 <.0001 0.0185 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V21 0.10561 0.04441 0.14392 0.07852 0.43482 0.20381 1.00000 0.17353 0.18921
0.0002 0.1156 <.0001 0.0053 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V27 0.12396 0.00363 0.15608 0.12802 0.29341 0.14724 0.17353 1.00000 0.38628
<.0001 0.8978 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V28 0.14479 0.05100 0.16293 0.08672 0.27810 0.12284 0.18921 0.38628 1.00000
<.0001 0.0707 <.0001 0.0021 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

Bourdieu’s Model Pearson Correlation Coefficients, N = 1704 (Variable Names: V2=

Volunteer Religious; V19=Religious Membership; V22=Religious Groups; V42=Friend
Contact; V43=CoWorker Contact; V44=Hanging With Friends; V16=Rally; V27=Public
Interest Groups; V15=Petition; V5=Neighborhood Association) Prob > |r| under H0:
Rho=0.
V2 V19 V22 V42 V43

V2 1.00000 0.53512 0.29020 0.07576 0.05492

<.0001 <.0001 0.0018 0.0234

V19 0.53512 1.00000 0.22134 -0.01069 -0.03982

<.0001 <.0001 0.6591 0.1003

V22 0.29020 0.22134 1.00000 0.05404 -0.00096

<.0001 <.0001 0.0257 0.9685

V44 V16 V27 V15 V5

V2 0.09620 0.18068 0.16270 0.15950 0.09961

<.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V19 -0.01374 0.12306 0.07398 0.09143 0.07715

0.5710 <.0001 0.0022 0.0002 0.0014

V22 0.05365 0.08694 0.13073 0.04871 0.07617

0.0268 0.0003 <.0001 0.0444 0.0017

V2 V19 V22 V42 V43

V42 0.07576 -0.01069 0.05404 1.00000 0.41805

0.0018 0.6591 0.0257 <.0001

V43 0.05492 -0.03982 -0.00096 0.41805 1.00000

0.0234 0.1003 0.9685 <.0001

V44 0.09620 -0.01374 0.05365 0.48290 0.34788

<.0001 0.5710 0.0268 <.0001 <.0001

V16 0.18068 0.12306 0.08694 0.07989 0.05214

<.0001 <.0001 0.0003 0.0010 0.0314

229
 V2 V19 V22 V42 V43

V27 0.16270 0.07398 0.13073 0.11501 0.09504

<.0001 0.0022 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V15 0.15950 0.09143 0.04871 0.10504 0.02144

<.0001 0.0002 0.0444 <.0001 0.3765

V5 0.09961 0.07715 0.07617 0.05667 0.02112

<.0001 0.0014 0.0017 0.0193 0.3837

V44 V16 V27 V15 V5

V42 0.48290 0.07989 0.11501 0.10504 0.05667

<.0001 0.0010 <.0001 <.0001 0.0193

V43 0.34788 0.05214 0.09504 0.02144 0.02112

<.0001 0.0314 <.0001 0.3765 0.3837

V44 1.00000 0.05788 0.05658 0.04838 0.01582

0.0169 0.0195 0.0459 0.5141

V16 0.05788 1.00000 0.35416 0.25071 0.19843

0.0169 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V27 0.05658 0.35416 1.00000 0.19507 0.16269

0.0195 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V15 0.04838 0.25071 0.19507 1.00000 0.17533

0.0459 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

V44 V16 V27 V15 V5

V5 0.01582 0.19843 0.16269 0.17533 1.00000

0.5141 <.0001 <.0001 <.0001

230