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

Abstract

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.

The double-edged role of accessed status on health and well-being among middle- and older-age adults in rural South Africa: The HAALSI study

“…However, accessed status is not without cost. Social cost theory has recently been proposed to explain the detrimental role of accessed status for health ( Song et al, 2021 ; Song & Pettis, 2020 ; Song, 2020 ). In contrast with social capital theory, social cost theory emphasizes the adverse health consequences of social networks, related to obligation, investment, stress, and possible conflict associated with generating and maintaining social relationships ( Song et al, 2021 ).…”

“…Recent evidence has also found potentially harmful implications of accessed status on health, given the cost and expenses of generating and maintaining social relationships ( Song et al, 2021 ). Prior researchers have tested the two competing theories in different cultural contexts, to show how they might vary across different population subgroups – including by education, employment, and gender ( Lee & Kawachi, 2017 ; Moore, Daniel, Paquet, et al, 2009 ; Song, 2014 ; Song et al, 2017 ; Song, 2020 ; Song & Pettis, 2020 ). However, little is known about the dual functions of accessed status on health by varying personal network structure and social support patterns.…”

Social Cost and Health: The Downside of Social Relationships and Social Networks

“…An integrative perspective is necessary but missing. Therefore, this article proposes the social cost model to fill this gap (Song 2019, 2020; Song and Chen 2021; Song and Pettis 2020). Parallel to the distinction between personal and social resources is the distinction between personal and social costs.…”

“…Accessed status has two dimensions: absolute (alters’ absolute status) and relative (alters’ status compared to ego’s). Social cost theory expects absolute and relative higher accessed status to damage health (Song 2019, 2020; Song and Pettis 2020). Consistent with this theory, knowing the leader of the work organization is positively associated with depression indirectly through financial dissatisfaction and receipt of unsolicited job leads in urban China (Song 2015a).…”

Mobilising Social Capital in Healthcare Industry of Pakistan

“…As per the Table 1.1Group I (Cohen and Prusak, 2002;Coleman, 1988;Quigley, 1996)used individualistic approach; Group II (Bourdieu and Wacquant, 1992;Portes, 1998)defined social capital on the basis of the collectivist approach; and, Group III (Adler and Kwon, 2002;Nahapiet and Ghoshal, 1998;Woolcock and Narayan, 2000)employed both the approaches i.e., individualistic and collectivist. Scientists discussed the comparison between both approaches in detail in different research works (Beilmann et al, 2018;Song, 2020). Yet the creation of social capital and a concise model using both the approaches in view the culture and identity were still deficient in the literature.…”