Do network members’ resources generate health inequality? Social capital theory and beyond

Song, Lijun; Frazier, Cleothia; Pettis, Philip J.

doi:10.4337/9781785360718.00026

Cited by 6 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relative higher and lower accessed status, respectively, indicates the abundance or lack of social resources. Empirical studies have demonstrated the protective effects of accessed status on various instrumental and expressive outcomes across societies (for reviews, see Lin 2001b; Song 2013b; Song et al 2018).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Social cost theory recently has emerged as a theory for the detrimental function of accessed status in the research field of health and well-being (Song 2019; Song et al 2018; Song and Pettis 2020). In contrast with social capital theory, which emphasizes the bright side of accessed status as a resource source, social cost theory highlights the dark side of accessed status as a source of detrimental social expenses.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It constitutes the meso-level hierarchical context where ego dwells in daily life. Its consequences have triggered six decades of systematic research (for reviews, see Lin 2001b; Song, Frazier, and Pettis 2018). Some recent studies find a puzzling paradox that accessed status plays a double-edged—protective and detrimental—role for health and well-being outcomes (Song et al 2018).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Its consequences have triggered six decades of systematic research (for reviews, see Lin 2001b; Song, Frazier, and Pettis 2018). Some recent studies find a puzzling paradox that accessed status plays a double-edged—protective and detrimental—role for health and well-being outcomes (Song et al 2018). Despite its substantial contributions, prior work pays little attention to the double-edged function of accessed status for life satisfaction and the variation of that function across culture and society (Acock and Hurlbert 1993; Song 2014a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Social Capital, Social Cost, and Relational Culture in Three Societies

Song

2020

Soc Psychol Q

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Does who you know in the status hierarchy satisfy or dissatisfy your life? Does that effect vary by culture and society? To addresses these two questions, this study applies four theories and analyzes the association between accessed status (network members’ status) and life satisfaction using nationally representative retrospective data from three societies (the United States, urban China, and Taiwan). Social capital theory expects absolute and relative higher accessed status (network members’ higher status relative to individuals’) to improve life satisfaction and relative lower accessed status to diminish life satisfaction. Social cost theory asserts the opposite. The collectivistic advantage explanation anticipates social capital theory to apply more to urban China and Taiwan than social cost theory and social cost theory to apply more to the United States than social capital theory. The collectivistic disadvantage explanation predicts the opposite. This study measures nine indicators of absolute and relative accessed status on the occupational dimension and six domain-specific satisfactions. Results support both social capital theory and social cost theory in all three societies. There is tentative evidence for the collectivistic disadvantage explanation across the three societies. Theoretical and methodological implications are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Social Capital, Social Cost, and Relational Culture in Three Societies

Song

2020

Soc Psychol Q

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Arguably, Small fails to fully address the wider set of network inequalities around race, socioeconomic status, housing status and other systemic mechanisms, for example. (Antinyan, Horváth, & Jia, 2019; Song, Frazier, & Pettis, 2018; Tóth et al, 2019). In fact, Small almost asserts that a poor family enrolled in a childcare centre in a poor neighbourhood may have more organisational social capital available to them than if the family were to attend a childcare centre in a slightly more affluent neighbourhood.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%