Top

Social Indicators Research

Published in:

02-01-2021 | Original Research

Social Capital and Subjective Social Status: Heterogeneity within East Asia

Authors: Ji Hye Kim, Claire Seungeun Lee

Published in: Social Indicators Research | Issue 3/2021

Activate our intelligent search to find suitable subject content or patents.

search-config

AI-assisted search

Off

Abstract

Previous studies have documented the associations of objective class with either social capital or subjective social status, yet little attention has been paid to the direct connections between social capital and subjective social status. This study highlights social capital as an essential source of subjective social status, particularly in East Asia, whose member societies have shared similarities but also developed distinctive social and cultural contexts. We investigate how individuals differently perceive their own subjective social status by their social capital and hypothesize that such associations vary across four societies. By analyzing Chinese, Taiwanese, Korean, and Japanese samples of the 2012 East Asian Social Survey, we examine bonding, bridging, and cognitive dimensions of social capital and their connections to subjective perceptions of social status, after controlling for objective class measures. As hypothesized, the results underscore the varying patterns of the associations between social capital and subjective social status across four societies. For instance, individuals who develop wider social connections with people occupying high-status occupations tend to rank themselves higher on a subjective social-status scale in Chinese societies only, where social connections particularly play an important role. Having trustworthy relatives and friends is associated with higher subjective social status in Taiwan and Korea, where members are less tolerant of ambiguity than China. None of the social capital measures matters in Japan, the most individualistic society in East Asia. The findings of this study improve our understandings of subjective social status by emphasizing individuals’ embeddedness in social relationships and broader cultural contexts.

previous article Being Poor and Feeling Rich or Vice Versa? The Determinants of Unequal Income Positions in Old Age Across Europe

next article European Identity: An Analysis of Measurement Equivalence Across Countries and Mode of Data Collection in the European Values Survey 2017/2018

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

inform now

China is the first, Japan is the eleventh, South Korea is the twenty-eighth, and Taiwan is the fifty-seventh most populated in the world (United Nations Population Division 2020). China’s GDP is the second, Japan’s is the third, and Korea’s is the twelfth highest in the world (The World Bank 2018). National-level income inequality, the Gini coefficient, is relatively high for China (46.5 in 2016), moderate for Japan (37.9 in 2011), and relatively low in Korea and Taiwan (35.7 in 2016 or 33.6 in 2014, respectively) (Central Intelligence Agency 2020).

China scores higher on Power Distance, taking power inequality between superiors and subordinates for granted, and scores lower on Uncertainty Avoidance, being tolerant of uncertainty and ambiguity, than Taiwan, Korea, and Japan. Japan scores higher on individualism, prioritizing personal needs to collective benefits compared with China, Taiwan, and Korea.

Families in East Asia are different from those in Europe and North America, emphasizing features such as extended family, coresidence, and strong family ties (Raymo et al. 2015).

Such tendencies are also true for school alumnus and people from the same region, which are valid across the four societies (Bian and Ikeda 2016; Yi 2019). Two hypothetical individuals who graduated from the same prestigious university would be more likely to trust each other, even though they do not develop strong interpersonal relationships. They share similar cultural backgrounds and potential resources that can be mobilized for personal achievement. In Korea, such social connections are called yeon-jul, affective linkages developed based on members’ birthplaces or educational backgrounds (Yazawa 2006).

Guanxi refers to social connections and networks, which has different dimensions and is widely utilized across time and societies. On the one hand, guanxi indicates a subset of relationships guided by the norms of reciprocity. On the other hand, in contemporary China, it means access to authority that helps obtain political or economic benefits through unethical and illegitimate routes (Chung and Hamilton 2001).

We additionally conducted multiple imputations for Taiwanese and Japanese samples. The results of Taiwan remain the same as the results of imputed data; the results of Japan have some differences in statistical significance but not in substantial meanings. Some studies report that Japan not only has experiencing declining response rates to survey (Inaba 2007), but also has higher levels of missing data in surveys (Yamaoka 2008).

The Cronbach’s alphas vary across the four samples. The scores of contact with people of high-status occupations are 0.69, 0.67, 0.60, and 0.55, and the scores of contact with people of low-status occupations are 0.55, 0.64, 0.49, and 0.59, for China, Taiwan, Korea, and Japan, respectively.

We conducted sensitivity analyses with this variable as a categorical, which do not change our results presented in the next section.

According to the supplementary analyses with five multiply imputed datasets (not presented), none of the social capital measures has statistically significant associations with subjective social status in M3 and M4 of Japan.

We tested another model that additionally includes the membership in the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in M4; CCP is closely related to social stratification in China (Bian et al. 2001). The main findings on social capital do not change, net of CCP membership. CCP membership itself is not significant for subjective social status.

For instance, Taiwan is the most progressive in Asia, regarding lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) rights. LGBT Global Acceptance Index, ranging from 1.6 to 8.9 among 174 countries, is the highest in Taiwan (5.7) among the four East Asian societies, followed by Korea and Japan (4.9), and the lowest in China (3.9) in 2014–2017 (Flore 2019).

Adler, N., & Stewart, J. (2007). The MacArthur scale of subjective social status. MacArthur research network on SES & health. Retrieved January 12, 2019, from http://www.macses.ucsf.edu/Research/Psychosocial/subjective.php.

Adler, N. E., Epel, E. S., Castellazzo, G., & Ickovics, J. R. (2000). Relationship of subjective and objective social status with psychological and physiological functioning: Preliminary data in healthy, White women. Health Psychology, 19(6), 586–592.CrossRef

Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2004). Individualism-collectivism and social capital. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 35(1), 29–49.CrossRef

Bian, Y., & Ikeda, K. (2016). East Asian social networks. In R. Alhajj & J. Rokne (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining (pp. 1–22). New York: Springer.

Bian, Y., Shu, X., & Logan, J. R. (2001). Communist Party membership and regime dynamics in China. Social Forces, 79(3), 805–841.CrossRef

Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. G. Richardson (Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241–258). New York: Greenwood.

Bucciol, A., Cicognani, C., & Zarri, L. (2020). Social status perception and individual social capital: Evidence from the US. The BE Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, 20(1), 20190071.

Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural hole. Cambridge: Harvard Business School Press.CrossRef

Cattell, V. (2001). Poor people, poor places, and poor health: The mediating role of social networks and social capital. Social Science & Medicine, 52, 1501–1516.CrossRef

Central Intelligence Agency. (2020) The world factbook. Retrieved June 15, 2020, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook

Chang, W. C. (2008). Social capital and subjective happiness in Taiwan. International Journal of Social Economics, 36(8), 844–868.CrossRef

Chen, E., & Paterson, L. Q. (2006). Neighborhood, family, and subjective socioeconomic status: How do they relate to adolescent health? Health Psychology, 25(6), 704–714.CrossRef

Chen, Y., & Fan, X. (2015). Discordance between subjective and objective social status in contemporary China. Journal of Chinese Sociology, 2, 14.CrossRef

Chung, W. K., & Hamilton, G. G. (2001). Social logic as business logic: Guanxi, trustworthiness, and the embeddedness of Chinese business practices. In R. P. Appelbaum, W. L. F. Felstiner, & V. Gessner (Eds.), Rules and networks: The legal culture of global business transactions (pp. 325–346). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.CrossRef

Côté, R. R., & Erickson, B. H. (2009). Untangling the roots of tolerance: How forms of social capital shape attitudes toward ethnic minorities and immigrants. American Behavioral Scientist, 52(12), 1664–1689.CrossRef

Crombie, B. (2011). Is guanxi social capital? ISM Journal of International Business, 1(2), 1–29.

D’Hooge, L., Achterberg, P., & Reeskens, T. (2018). Imagining class: A study into material social class position, subjective identification, and voting behavior across Europe. Social Science Research, 70, 71–89.CrossRef

Demakakos, P., Nazroo, J., Breeze, E., & Marmot, M. (2008). Socioeconomic status and health: The role of subjective social status. Social Science & Medicine, 67(2), 330–340.CrossRef

Deng, Z., & Treiman, D. J. (1997). The impact of the cultural revolution on trends in educational attainment in the People’s Republic of China. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 391–428.CrossRef

Evans, M. D., & Kelley, J. (2004). Subjective social location: Data from 21 nations. International Journal Of Public Opinion Research, 16(1), 3–38.CrossRef

Flores, A. R. (2019). Social acceptance of LGBT people in 174 countries: 1981–2017. UCLA School of Law: Williams Institute.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRef

Grzegorczyk, M. (2019). The role of culture-moderated social capital in technology transfer–insights from Asia and America. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 143, 132–141.CrossRef

Harpham, T. (2008). The measurement of community social capital through surveys. In I. Kawachi, S. Subramanian, & D. Kim (Eds.), Social capital and health (pp. 51–62). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: National differences in thinking and organizing. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Hong, J., & Engeström, Y. (2004). Changing principles of communication between Chinese managers and workers: Confucian authority chains and guanxi as social networking. Management Communication Quarterly, 17(4), 552–585.CrossRef

Horvat, E. M., Weininger, E. B., & Lareau, A. (2003). From social ties to social capital: Class differences in the relations between schools and parent networks. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 319–351.CrossRef

Inaba, A. (2007). Problems relating to declining response rates to social survey research in Japan: Trends after 2000. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, 16, 10–22.CrossRef

Inoguchi, T. (2002). Broadening the basis of social capital in Japan. In R. D. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 359–392). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Inoguchi, T., & Shin, D. C. (2009). The quality of life in Confucian Asia: From physical welfare to subjective well-being. Social Indicators Research, 92(2), 183–190.CrossRef

Jackman, M. R., & Jackman, R. W. (1973). An interpretation of the relation between objective and subjective social status. American Sociological Review, 38(5), 569–582.CrossRef

King, A. Y. C., & Bond, M. H. (1985). The Confucian paradigm of man: A sociological view. In W. S. Tseng & D. Y. H. Wu (Eds.), Chinese culture and mental health (pp. 29–45). Academic.

Kluegel, J. R., Singleton, R., Jr., & Starnes, C. E. (1977). Subjective class identification: A multiple indicator approach. American Sociological Review, 42, 599–611.CrossRef

Kohn, M. L., Naoi, A., Schoenbach, C., Schooler, C., & Slomczynski, K. M. (1990). Position in the class structure and psychological functioning in the United States, Japan, and Poland. American Journal of Sociology, 95(4), 964–1008.CrossRef

Krueger, A. (1995). East Asian experience and endogenous growth theory. In T. Ito & A. Krueger (Eds.), Growth theories in light of the East Asian experience (pp. 9–36). Chicago: Chicago University Press.

Lall, S. (2002). Social capital and industrial transformation. In S. Fukuda-Parr, C. Lopes, & K. Malik (Eds.), Capacity for development: new solutions to old problems (pp. 101–119). New York: UNDP.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods: Race, class, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lareau, A., & Conley, D. (Eds.). (2008). Social class: How does it work? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure and action. London and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef

Lin, N., Ensel, W. M., & Vaughn, J. C. (1981). Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. American Sociological Review, 46(4), 393–405.CrossRef

Manstead, A. S. (2018). The psychology of social class: How socioeconomic status impacts thought, feelings, and behaviour. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(2), 267–291.CrossRef

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224–253.CrossRef

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5(4), 420–430.CrossRef

Miyamoto, Y. (2017). Culture and social class. Current Opinion in Psychology, 18, 67–72.CrossRef

Navarro-Carrillo, G., Valor-Segura, I., & Moya, M. (2018). Do you trust strangers, close acquaintances, and members of your ingroup? Differences in trust based on social class in Spain. Social Indicators Research, 135, 1–13.CrossRef

Nee, V., & Cao, Y. (2002). Postsocialist inequalities: The causes of continuity and discontinuity. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 19, 3–39.CrossRef

Nielsen, F., Roos, J. M., & Combs, R. M. (2015). Clues of subjective social status among young adults. Social Science Research, 52, 370–388.CrossRef

Ogihara, Y. (2017). Temporal changes in individualism and their ramification in Japan: Rising individualism and conflicts with persisting collectivism. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 695.CrossRef

Pichler, F., & Wallace, C. (2009). Social capital and social class in Europe: The role of social networks in social stratification. European Sociological Review, 25(3), 319–332.CrossRef

Piff, P. K., Kraus, M. W., Côté, S., Cheng, B. H., & Keltner, D. (2010). Having less, giving more: the influence of social class on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(5), 771.CrossRef

Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24(1), 1–24.CrossRef

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. In Culture and politics (pp. 223–234). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

Rahal, D., Chiang, J. J., Fales, M., Fuligni, A. J., Haselton, M. G., Slavich, G. M., & Robles, T. F. (2020). Early life stress, subjective social status, and health during late adolescence. Psychology & Health, 13, 1–19.

Raymo, J. M., Park, H., Xie, Y., & Yeung, W. J. J. (2015). Marriage and family in East Asia: Continuity and change. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 471–492.CrossRef

Ream, R. K., & Palardy, G. J. (2008). Reexamining social class differences in the availability and the educational utility of parental social capital. American Educational Research Journal, 45(2), 238–273.CrossRef

Sayer, A. (2010). Class and morality. In S. Hitlin & S. Vaisey (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of morality (pp. 163–178). New York: Springer.CrossRef

Singh-Manoux, A., Adler, N. E., & Marmot, M. G. (2003). Subjective social status: Its determinants and its association with measures of ill-health in the Whitehall II study. Social Science & Medicine, 56(6), 1321–1333.CrossRef

Sørensen, A. B. (2000). Toward a sounder basis for class analysis. American Journal of Sociology, 105(6), 1523–1558.CrossRef

Sosnaud, B., Brady, D., & Frenk, S. M. (2013). Class in name only: Subjective class identity, objective class position, and vote choice in American presidential elections. Social Problems, 60(1), 81–99.CrossRef

Stuber, J. M. (2006). Talk of class: The discursive repertoires of white working-and upper-middle-class college students. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 35(3), 285–318.CrossRef

Triandis, H. (1988). Collectivism v. individualism: A reconceptualisation of a basic concept in cross-cultural social psychology. In C. Bagley & G. Verma (Eds.), Cross-cultural studies of personality, attitudes and cognition (pp. 60–95). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRef

Vanneman, R. D. (1980). US and British perceptions of class. American Journal of Sociology, 85(4), 769–790.CrossRef

Wallace, C., & Pichler, F. (2009). More participation, happier society? A comparative study of civil society and the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 93(2), 255–274.CrossRef

Weber, M. (1968). Basic Sociological Terms. In G. Roth & C. Wittich (Eds.), Economy and society (pp. 3–62). Berkeley: University of California Press.

Weeden, K. A., & Grusky, D. B. (2005). The case for a new class map. American Journal of Sociology, 111(1), 141–212.CrossRef

Wolff, L. S., Subramanian, S. V., Acevedo-Garcia, D., Weber, D., & Kawachi, I. (2010). Compared to whom? Subjective social status, self-rated health, and referent group sensitivity in a diverse US sample. Social Science & Medicine, 70(12), 2019–2028.CrossRef

Xiao, Z., & Tsui, A. S. (2007). When brokers may not work: The cultural contingency of social capital in Chinese high-tech firms. Administrative Science Quarterly, 52(1), 1–31.CrossRef

Xie, Y., Jiang, Y., & Greenman, E. (2008). Did send-down experience benefit youth? A reevaluation of the social consequences of forced urban-rural migration during China’s Cultural Revolution. Social Science Research, 37, 686–700.CrossRef

Yamaguchi, A. (2013). Impact of social capital on the psychological well-being of adolescents. International Journal Of Psychological Studies, 5(2), 100.CrossRef

Yamaoka, K. (2008). Social capital and health and well-being in East Asia: A population-based study. Social Science & Medicine, 66(4), 885–899.CrossRef

Yang, G. (2003). China’s Zhiqing generation: Nostalgia, identity, and cultural resistance in the 1990s. Modern China, 29(3), 267–296.CrossRef

Yang, M. M.-H. (1989). The gift economy and state power in China. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 31(1), 25–54.CrossRef

Yazawa, S. (2006). Social networks in East Asia. Theory, Culture & Society, 23(2–3), 314–317.CrossRef

Yi, J. S. (2019). In-group and out-group perspectives: A cross-cultural comparison of four countries. Journal of Intercultural Communication, 50.

Yu, G., Zhao, F., Wang, H., & Li, S. (2018). Subjective social class and distrust among Chinese college students: The mediating roles of relative deprivation and belief in a just world. Current Psychology, 1–10.

Yuki, M. (2003). Intergroup comparison versus intragroup relationships: A cross-cultural examination of social identity theory in North American and East Asian cultural contexts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66(2), 166–183.CrossRef

Yuki, M., Maddux, W. W., Brewer, M. B., & Takemura, K. (2005). Cross-cultural differences in relationship-and group-based trust. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(1), 48–62.CrossRef

Zhang, Y. B., Lin, M. C., Nonaka, A., & Beom, K. (2005). Harmony, hierarchy and conservatism: A cross-cultural comparison of Confucian values in China, Korea, Japan, and Taiwan. Communication Research Reports, 22(2), 107–115.CrossRef

Title: Social Capital and Subjective Social Status: Heterogeneity within East Asia
Authors: Ji Hye Kim
Claire Seungeun Lee
Publication date: 02-01-2021
Publisher: Springer Netherlands
Published in: Social Indicators Research / Issue 3/2021
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-020-02548-9

Springer Professional

Abstract

Please log in to get access to your license.

Dont have a licence yet? Then find out more about our products and how to get one now:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Other articles of this Issue 3/2021

Proposal for a Dynamic Composite Indicator: Application in a Comparative Analysis of Trends in the EU Member States Towards the Europe 2020 Strategy

Comparative Perspectives on Social Indicators

Gender Gaps in Care Work: Evidences from Argentina, Chile, Spain and Uruguay

Antipoverty Effects of Various Social Transfers and Income Taxes Across Countries

So Far, so Similar? Labour Market Feminization in Italy and Chile

Drivers of Youth Labour Market Integration Across European Regions

Premium Partner