Which is More Relevant for Perceived Happiness, Individual-Level or Area-Level Social Capital? A Multilevel Mediation Analysis

Abstract

A growing number of studies have addressed how social capital is closely related to an individual's perceived happiness. However, most happiness studies have focused on individual-level social capital, which is based on an individual's subjective assessment of social capital gathered from social surveys. Considering that social capital was originally a collective concept, this study distinguished individual-and area-level aspects of social capital and their relationships in terms of their associations with perceived happiness. To this end, we employed multilevel mediation analysis using cross-sectional microdata from a nationwide Internet survey conducted in Japan (N = 9523). We focused on four types of social capital: trust in neighbors, contacts with neighbors, bonding, and bridging. Based on the estimation results, we first confirmed that social capital at both the individual and area levels had a positive association with perceived happiness when using them separately as an independent variable. Second, we found that a substantial portion of the effect of area-level social capital on perceived happiness was mediated by individuallevel social capital. This suggests that an individual's commitment to area-level social capital is required if a large portion of its potential benefits on perceived happiness are to materialize. Furthermore, we observed that the effects of area-level bonding and bridging on their individual-level measures were affected by several individual-level attributes, including personality traits. Overall, the results underscore the need for further investigation into the association between perceived happiness and social capital at different levels.

An Examination of the Links Between Organizational Social Capital and Employee Well-Being: Focusing on the Mediating Role of Quality of Work Life

“…However, social capital can be conceived as an organizational characteristic (Berthelsen et al, 2016; Kiss et al, 2014; Kristensen, 2010), suggesting that work-unit-level and individual-level OSC can be considered distinct aspects of the concept to some extent. In other words, SWB could be influenced differentially by OSC at both the individual level and the collective level (Kiss et al, 2014; Oshio, 2016). A multilevel analysis could be desirable in future studies to simultaneously consider both individual and organizational levels of OSC and examine its associations with SWB.…”

Social capital and frequent attenders in general practice: a register-based cohort study

“…This study was conducted explicitly at the individual level, whereas previous literature has featured multi-level or area-level analyses, which might influence the findings. While sound arguments exist for both measures, empirical evidence suggests that area-level effects are mediated through individual-level characteristics [ 50 ]. If the effects of social capital originate at the area level, we would expect them to be inherent in our individual-level measures.…”

Dukungan Sosial dan Kebahagiaan Lansia Penghuni Panti Sosial di Medan

“…(Diener, 2009). Peneliti lain juga Ummu Khuzaimah, Yenni Anggraini, Zahrotur Rusyda Hinduan, Hendriati Agustiani, Ahmad Gimmy Prathama Siswadi mendukung isu hubungan sosial (social ties) kaitannya dengan kebahagiaan lansia seperti dukungan sosial (Ahmadi et al, 2019;Gariépy et al, 2016;Ghani et al, 2016;Lee & Kim, 2015;Luchesi et al, 2018;Babak Moeini et al, 2016); modal sosial (social capital) (Almasi et al, 2018;Arampatzi et al, 2018;Han, 2015;Kim et al, 2020;Oshio, 2017); social capital and social network (Arampatzi et al, 2018); relasi sosial (Aziz & Ahmad, 2017;Waldinger & Schulz, 2010); kepercayaan sosial (social trust) (Lu et al, 2020); kebutuhan sosial (social needs) (Buijs et al, 2020); sumber-sumber psikososial (psychosocial resources) . (Thoits, 1985).…”