Self-rated health (SRH) is commonly assessed in large surveys, though responses can be 6 influenced by different individuals' perceptions of and beliefs about health. Therefore, 7instead of providing evidence of 'true' health disparities across groups, findings may actually 8 reflect reporting heterogeneity. 9Using data from participants aged 50 years and older from the English Longitudinal 10 Study of Ageing (ELSA) Wave 3 (2006/07; participation rate =73%), associations between 11 three dimensions of social capital (local area & trust, social support and social networks), 12 deprivation and SRH were examined using the vignette methodology in 2341 individuals 13 who completed both the self-report and at least one of the 18 vignettes. Analysis employed 14 a hierarchical probit model (HOPIT). 15Individuals expressing low local area & trust social capital (beta= -0.276, p<0.001) 16and those with poor social networks (beta= -0.280, p<0.001) were more likely to report poor 17 SRH in HOPIT models accounting for reporting heterogeneity, but unadjusted ordered probit 18 analyses still correctly show a negative relationship between low local area & trust social 19 capital (beta= -0.243, p<0.001) and those with poor social networks (beta= -0.210, p<0.01), 20 though they somewhat tend to underestimate its strength. Neither social support nor 21 deprivation appeared to have any effect on SRH regardless of reporting heterogeneity. Empirical evidence has consistently demonstrated a relationship between social 48 capital and self-rated health (SRH) (Chen and Meng, 2015; Giordano et al., 2012; Kawachi et 49 al., 1999; Kawachi and Berkman, 2014; Koutsogeorgou et al., 2015;Nieminen et al., 2013 Nieminen et al., , 50 2010, but because there is no 'gold standard' of how to measure social capital, the strength 51 of the association is uncertain. A simple definition of social capital is: the "resources that are 52 accessed by individuals as a result of their membership of a network or a group" (Kawachi 53 and Berkman, 2014). While there is a debate around the conceptualisation of social capital 54 (Kawachi et al., 2004;Poortinga, 2006; Szreter and Woolcock, 2004) most agree that it is 55 multidimensional and that it carries different interpretations depending on who defines it 56and on their disciplinary traditions. 57Social capital has been suggested to improve health through norms and attitudes 58 that influence healthy behaviours, and psychosocial networks that increase access to health 59 care and mechanisms that enhance self-esteem (Kawachi et al., 1999; Kawachi and 60 Berkman, 2014; Lindström, 2008). Conversely, social capital can also have a negative impact 61 on health, including the promotion (but also cessation) of risky behaviours (e.g. smoking), 62 exchanging wrong information, the exclusion of 'outsiders', and downward-levelling norms 63 (Burt, 1992;Campos-Matos et al., 2016; Christakis and Fowler, 2008; Kawachi and Berkman, 64 2014;Rosenquist et al., 2011). Interventions have been conducted to evaluate ...