Download - Can social capital buffer against feelings of marginalisation and its impact on subjective wellbeing? Empirical evidence from the 2003 Quality of Life.

Can social capital buffer against feelings of marginalisation and its impact on subjective wellbeing?

Empirical evidence from the 2003 Quality of Life in South East Queensland Survey

NB. Please view via ‘Notes page’. You can then progress through the document using your mouse wheel, Page Down key, or the double-headed arrow to the right of this frame.

Marginalisation in normal populations

Marginalisation: not feeling part of society ‘Special’ populations often do not feel part

of society and may be discriminated against in society e.g. Aborigines, ethnic groups, mentally ill,

homeless and disabled. Those in the ‘normal’ population generally

feel part of society but some feel more part of society than others

Societal context for marginalisation in normal populations

Globalisation: rapid erosion of national boundaries on economic, political and cultural dimensions

De-industrialisation and post-modernisation of economies and societies

More professionals and unskilled services workers

Fewer blue collar workers Some are more valued in society and will

more feel part of a changing society

Occupational prestige

Definition: the prestige accorded by others to various occupations. It is a single dimensional indicator of socio-economic advantage

In society, some occupations are valued more in society and accorded higher prestige

Occupational prestige may impact on how much a person feels part of society

Social capital

Relates to societal norms and networks which promote collective action for mutual benefit.

At the individual level, it involves trust, reciprocity and agency

Social capital is often conceptualised at a community level rather than the societal level

However, social capital may help people feel part of society

Hypotheses

Those of low occupational prestige will feel more marginalised from society (H1)

Those with low social capital will feel more marginalised from society (H2)

Social capital will buffer against low occupational status. That is, effect of low occupational status on marginalisation will be less for those high in social capital (H3)

Hypotheses cont’d

Feeling marginalised from society will reduce subjective well-being such that: life satisfaction will be lower (H4) positive affect will be lower (H5) negative affect will be higher (H6)

The sample

Residents aged 18 years and over in South East Queensland (SEQ)

1,610 respondents to 2003 QOL survey 30 percent response rate Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing

N=780 in the analysis because not all respondents received questions on negative and positive affect

Generally representative sample though more socio-economically advantaged

than the SEQ population

Comparison: population and sample 2003QOL 2001Census

Median age of those aged 18 and over 46 43

Percentage female of those aged 18 and over 49 51

Percentage married or in a defacto relationship 60 56

Percentage divorced, separated or widowed 18 18

Percentage born in Australia 77 73

Percentage Indigenous 1.4 1.5

Percentage with post-school qualifications 78 78

Percentage with a bachelors degree or higher qualification 25 14

Median income of those aged 20 and over 26,000 23,700

Median household income 57,200 43,700

Percentage employed of those aged 18 and over 65 59

Percentage of total persons aged 18 and over who are employed full-time 37 37

Percentage of dwellings that are separate houses 84 75

Percentage of dwellings that are townhouses, units, flats or semi-detached housing 15 22

Percentage of employed persons working from home 9 5

Percentage of employed persons travelling to work who used a train 82 83

SEQ region and sample

Measures

Occupational prestige ANU3_2: This scale provides a prestige

score for each of 340 4-digit codes in the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO)

Job descriptions from QOL survey were coded to 4-digit ASCO

We coded those not currently employed to their most recent employment

Missing values = 27 out of 780

Measures cont’d

Social capital: 12 items relating to agency, trust and

reciprocity For example,

agreement with “At work, I frequently take the initiative to do what needs to be done even if none asks me to”

trust in “Neighbours who are not friends or family”

frequency of exchanging practical help or advice with “Your close family and other relatives with whom you don’t live”

5-point scales α = .73

Measures cont’d

Marginalisation: The Margins of Society (MOS) Alienation Scale 7 statements for example, “I feel discriminated against”; “I

wish I were someone important”; and “I don’t like to live by societies rules”.

5-point agreement scale α = .78. Strong positive skew. Analysis used natural log

Measures cont’d

Life satisfaction: Average of 14 items Satisfaction in various life domains For example, employment, leisure time,

family life, social relationships, health and standard of living

5-point satisfaction scale α = .85

Measures cont’d

Negative and positive affect PANAS scale (brief version):

10 items for positive affect (e.g., proud, inspired, and interested) and

10 items for negative affect (e.g., distressed, irritable, and afraid).

Respondents were asked to what extent they feel this way right now

positive affect α = .89 negative affect α = .85 Negative affect had a very strong positive

skew. Analysis used a median split.


Marginalisation

Social capital

Interaction

Life satisfaction

Positive affect

Negative affect

Model

H1

H2

H3

H4

H5

H6


Marginalisation

Social capital

Interaction

Life satisfaction

Positive affect

Negative affect

.08

-.20

-.18

.03

-.36

-.22

.36

.11

-.07

.30

-.22

.06

Results

.92.87

.95

.87

Chi-square=61.49, df=9, p<.001, RMSEA=.09, AGFI=.92, CAIC=206.32


Marginalisation

Social capital

Interaction

Life satisfaction

Positive affect

Negative affect

Results – modified model


Marginalisation

Social capital

Interaction

Life satisfaction

Positive affect

Negative affect

.08

-.20

-.18

.03

-.31

-.19

.34

.11

-.07

.26

-.19

.08

Results – modified model

.92.81

.93

.86

.25

.14

-.11

Chi-square=12.58, df=6, p=.05, RMSEA=.04, AGFI=.97, CAIC=180.28

Summary of Results

Occupational prestige and social capital predict marginalisation to about the same degree, though social capital does not moderate the relationship between occupational prestige and marginalisation

Marginalisation reduces subjective wellbeing

Social capital increase subjective wellbeing directly and indirectly

Can social capital buffer against feelings of marginalisation and its impact on subjective wellbeing?

Social capital can improve subjective wellbeing directly and indirectly

Indirectly via lower marginalisation Directly, mainly by increasing life

satisfaction probably by more satisfying social relationships or by assisting in achieving important life

outcomes