The Dimensions Of Social Capital

This study called into question the rationale and methods used by researchers used to measure levels of social capital, particularly Putnam (1995), Paxton (1999), and Park (2006). A central purpose to this study was to partially replicate and extend the work of Park, who theoretically derived four dimensions of social capital. I develop measures of each dimension and then regress each on the variables of age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, education, income, and religiosity. This created four sets of outcomes from which I drew conclusions about the dimensionality of the social capital concept. Based on the low percentage of variance explained by the models and the fact that many coefficients reverse signs from one model to the next, I conclude that these dimensions do not represent four parts of a single, underlying construct. This was counter to both Paxton and Park’s conclusions. The results of this study also offer a way to examine the effects of subgroups on each dimension. In addition, Park’s hypothesis of “coffeeing together” was tested and found to be inconsistent with the descriptive results. Recommendations were made for future applications of social capital research and an alternative hypothesis was cited as a promising way to conduct subsequent studies