Measuring Social Capital at the Individual Level: Personal Social Capital, Values and Psychological Distress.
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200000020 |
| Date | 01 March 2000 |
| Published date | 01 March 2000 |
| Pages | 35-44 |
| Author | Helen Berry,Debra Rickwood |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
International Journal of Mental Health Promotion VOLUME 2 ISSUE 3 • AUGUST 2000 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Limited. 35
Introduction
Most indicators of socio-economic well-being, health and crime in
Australia have stayed the same or worsened over the last ten years
(Hamilton, 1998), indicating a steady decline in social health.In the
Unites States, widespread and steadily increasing levels of violent
crime have been linked to relative deprivation, falling social cohesion
(Kawachi et al., 1999) and a general erosion of social health (Kawachi
& Kennedy, 1999).Similar declines in social health have been
observed in more than 30 other countries worldwide (Putnam, 1995),
including Russia (Kennedy et al., 1998). Unhealthy communities are
unable to build or maintain the physical and social infrastructure their
members need to support each other and to realise their individual
potential (Hancock & Duhl, 1988, in Baum, 1999).Healthy communi-
ties, in contrast, are vital and ‘organic’,constantly renewing their ability
to respond to group goals and to the needs of individuals (Gilbert,
1993). The antecedents of social health outcomes are many and
complex. Baum (1999) states that general health outcomes cannot be
predicted by simple linear models but only by
‘interactive model[s] of causality’ which take account
of a ‘complex interplay’ of factors. Current research indicates that the
social antecedents of socio-economic and political well-being
(Putnam, 1995) and general physical health in the community
(Kawachi et al., 1997) are indeed complex. From a psychological
perspective, as Leeder (1998) suggests, it is intuitively logical to expect
that healthy communities would be happier places in which to live
than those which feature anonymity and distrust.
Healthy communities and social capital
Healthy communities have high levels of social capital (Kawachi et al.,
1997; Putnam, 1995). Lochner et al. (1999) has proposed that there
are at least four overlapping constructs which tap some part of the
notion of social capital: collective efficacy,psychological sens e of
community,neighbourhood cohesion and community competence.At a
minimum, levels of social capital determine the extent to which people
are able to interact in their communities in a way which is generally
acceptable and which does not have to be maintained by coercion and
legal battles (Saunders & Winter,1999).At a more elaborate level,
Measuring Social Capital at
the Individual Level: Personal
Social Capital, Values and
Psychological Distress
Helen L. Berry
Research School of Social Sciences, Australian
National University
Debra J. Rickwood
Department of Applied Psychology, University
of Canberra
FEATURE
It is proposed that social capital, a societal-level
construct, can be measured at the individual
level. This ‘personal social capital’ is a
psychological construct defined as a logically
linked sequence of social behaviours:
community participation, social support and
trust in others. Individuals who have more
personal social capital will participate in their
communities more and have more social
support, greater trust in others and less
psychological distress than those with less.
It was also predicted that social values would
influence levels of personal social capital,
indirectly influencing distress. Structural
equations modelling revealed that, within
the construct of personal social capital, the
strongest predictor of distress was community
trust. Harmony values also directly predicted
distress, while security values had an indirect
effect via reduced community participation,
social support and community trust.
ABSTRACT
To continue reading
Request your trial