1 / 21

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

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.

carson
Download Presentation

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

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. 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)

  7. 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)

  8. 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

  9. Comparison: population and sample

  10. SEQ region and sample

  11. 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

  12. 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

  13. 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

  14. 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

  15. 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.

  16. Model Life satisfaction H1 H4 Occupational prestige Marginalisation H2 H5 Positive affect Social capital H3 H6 Interaction Negative affect

  17. Results Chi-square=61.49, df=9, p<.001, RMSEA=.09, AGFI=.92, CAIC=206.32 .87 .92 Life satisfaction -.20 -.36 Occupational prestige Marginalisation -.18 -.22 .30 .95 .11 Positive affect -.22 Social capital .08 .03 .36 -.07 .06 .87 Interaction Negative affect

  18. Results – modified model Life satisfaction Occupational prestige Marginalisation Positive affect Social capital Interaction Negative affect

  19. Results – modified model Chi-square=12.58, df=6, p=.05, RMSEA=.04, AGFI=.97, CAIC=180.28 .81 .92 Life satisfaction -.20 -.31 Occupational prestige Marginalisation .25 -.18 -.19 .26 .93 .11 .14 Positive affect -.19 Social capital .08 -.11 .03 .34 -.07 .08 .86 Interaction Negative affect

  20. 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

  21. 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

More Related