Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism in Europe

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of the present study was to examine the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism in a sample of 50,417 individuals from 29 European countries using data from the European Social Survey Round 6 (2012). Social capital was measured in terms of generalized social trust and informal social networks; individualism–collectivism was operationalized via Schwartz’s Openness to Change–Conservation value dimension. Results from a hierarchical linear modeling analysis showed that less than 10% of variance in social capital indicators was found between countries, meaning that the level of social capital varies more substantively between individuals than between the countries. Openness to Change had a weak but statistically significant and positive relationship both with the indices of Generalized Social Trust and Informal Social Networks, which remained significant even when individual age, gender, education level, and domicile were controlled for. In sum, our findings show that the positive relationship between social capital and individualism that has been found at the cultural level also holds at the individual level: people who emphasize independent thought, action, and readiness to change are also more willing to believe that most people can be trusted and are more engaged in informal social networks. The relationship is, nevertheless, very weak and the strength of the association varies significantly across different European countries. This variation, however, cannot be explained by country differences in level of democracy or human development and the country’s wealth moderates only the individual level relationship between Openness to Change and Informal Social Networks. Our findings suggest that sources of social capital at the individual level can be found in people’s immediate social surroundings, as well as their everyday social interactions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. According to Schwartz et al. (2012), it is reasonable to impute the missing values for the respondents who have up to five missing values in PVQ21 when using higher order values and cultural dimensions (e.g. openness to change vs. conservation) in research.

  2. However, as the data was cross-sectional, no causal inferences can be made.

  3. In order to attest our results, we produced a summary model for both indicators of social capital (i.e., Informal Social Networks and General Social Trust). This model included all variables from two previous separate HLM models (i.e., at Level 1 the predictor variables was Openness to Change–Conservation together with control variables gender, age, education level and domicile, and at Level 2 the moderators of the Level-1 association between social capital indicators and Openness to Change–Conservation were countries’ HDI, GDP, and the Democracy Index). The results of these two models showed that, at the individual level, the variable Informal Social Networks was statistically significantly associated with Openness to Change–Conservation, β = −0.27 (SE = 0.03, t = −8.63, df = 25, p < .001), and with the control variable age. General social trust was also significantly related to Openness to Change–Conservation, β = −0.13 (SE = 0.05, t = −2.44, df = 25, p < .05), and to control variables education and age. At the country level, both the association between Informal Social Networks and Openness to Change–Conservation, as well as the association between General Social Trust and Openness to Change–Conservation was moderated by the Democracy Index (γ = 0.04, SE = 0.02, t = 2.28, p < 0.05, and γ = 0.05, SE = 0.01, t = 4.21, p < 0.001, respectively). Thus, it appears that the individual-level associations between the two social capital indicators and Openness to Change–Conservation were in the same magnitude as was found using two separate models, but there were some changes in statistically significant country-level moderator effects. However, it is not advisable to use all three country-level indicators in one model because of multicollinearity issues.

References

  • Adler, P. S., & Kwon, S.-W. (2002). Social capital: Prospects for a new concept. The Academy of Management Review, 27, 17–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akcomak, S., & ter Weel, B. (2011). The impact of social capital on crime: Evidence from the Netherlands. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 42, 323–340.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arts, W., & Halman, L. (Eds.). (2004). European values at the turn of the Millennium. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beilmann, M., & Lilleoja, L. (2015). Social trust and value similarity: The relationship between social trust and human values in Europe. Studies of Transition States and Societies, 7, 19–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beilmann, M., Mayer, B., Kasearu, K., & Realo, A. (2014). The relationship between adolescents’ social capital and individualism–collectivism in Estonia, Germany, and Russia. Child Indicators Research, 7, 589–611.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beilmann, M., & Realo, A. (2012). Individualism–collectivism and social capital at the individual level. Trames: Journal of the Humanities and Social Sciences, 16, 205–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 95–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dakhli, M. (2009). Investigating the effects of individualism–collectivism on trust and cooperation. Psychology Journal, 6, 90–99.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davidov, E., Schmidt, P., & Schwartz, S. H. (2008). Bringing values back in: The adequacy of the European Social Survey to measure values in 20 countries. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 420–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Souza Briggs, X. (1997). Social capital and the cities: Advice to change agents. National Civic Review, 86, 111–117.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Delhey, J., & Newton, K. (2005). Predicting cross-national levels of social trust: Global pattern or Nordic exceptionalism? European Sociological Review, 21, 311–327.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engbers, T. A., Thompson, M. F., & Slaper, T. F. (2015). Theory and measurement in social capital research. Social Indicators Research, 1–22.

  • ESS Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data. (2012). Data file edition 2.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway—Data Archive and distributor of ESS data. Retrieved from http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/

  • Finkelstein, M. A. (2010). Individualism/collectivism: Implications for the volunteer process. Social Behavior and Personality, 38, 445–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gheorghiu, M. A., Vignoles, V. L., & Smith, P. B. (2009). Beyond the United States and Japan: testing Yamagishi’s emancipation theory of trust across 31 nations. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72, 365–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guillen, L., Coromina, L., & Saris, W. E. (2011). Measurement of social participation and its place in social capital theory. Social Indicators Research, 100, 331–350.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halman, L., & Luijkx, R. (2006). Social capital in contemporary Europe: Evidence from the European Social Survey. Portuguese Journal of Social Science, 5, 65–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirsch, P. M., & Levin, D. Z. (1999). Umbrella advocates versus validity police: A life-cycle model. Organization Science, 10, 199–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences: International differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (1991). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind. London: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2001). Culture’s consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations (2nd ed.). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede, G. (2004). Epi-dialogue. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures. Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 270–278). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, M., & Vanhoutte, B. (2011). Subjective well-being and social capital in Belgian communities. The impact of community characteristics on subjective well-being indicators in Belgium. Social Indicators Research, 100, 17–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jagodzinski, W. (2004). Methodological problems of value research. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures. Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 97–121). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaasa, A. (2009). Effects of different dimensions of social capital on innovative activity: Evidence from Europe at the regional level. Technovation, 29, 218–233.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelly, B. D., Davoren, M., Mhaolain, A. N., Breen, E., & Casey, P. (2009). Social capital and suicide in 11 European countries: An ecological analysis. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 44, 971–977.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kemmelmeier, M., Jambor, E. E., & Letner, J. (2006). Individualism and good works: Cultural variations in giving and volunteering across the United States. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 37, 327–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kroll, C. (2011). Different things make different people happy: Examining social capital and subjective well-being by gender and parental status. Social Indicators Research, 104, 157–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lappe, F. M., & Du Bois, P. M. (1997). Building social capital without looking backward. National Civic Review, 86, 119–128.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, V. E. (2000). Using hierarchical linear modelling to study social contexts: The case of school effects. Educational Psychologist, 35, 125–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N. (2000). Inequality in social capital. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 785–795.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lin, N., & Erickson, B. H. (2008). Generalized social trust: An international research program. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lippl, B. (2007). Soziales Engagement und politische Partizipation in Europa. Sozialkapital: Grundlagen und Anwendungen. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, Sonderheft, 47, 420–449.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulemann, H. (2008a). Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002. Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meulemann, H. (2008b). Is altruism more effective where it is required more? Collectivity-orientation and involvement in interest, issue, and religious associations. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002 (pp. 73–102). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mõttus, R., Allik, J., & Realo, A. (2010). An attempt to validate national mean scores of conscientiousness: No necessarily paradoxical findings. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 630–640.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neira, I., Portela, M., & Vieira, E. (2010). Social capital and growth in European regions. Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, 10, 19–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • Neller, K. (2008). Explaining social trust: What makes people trust their fellow citizens. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002 (pp. 103–133). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton, K. (2001). Trust, social capital, civil society, and democracy. International Political Science Review, 22(2), 201–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oishi, S., Schimmack, U., Diener, E., & Suh, E. M. (1998). The measurement of values and individualism–collectivism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1177–1187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Oyserman, D., & Lee, S. W. S. (2008). Does culture influence what and how we think? Effects of priming individualism and collectivism. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 311–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poortinga, W. (2006). Social capital. An individual or collective resource for health. Social Science and Medicine, 62, 292–302.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Portes, A., & Vickstrom, E. (2011). Diversity, social capital, and cohesion. The Annual Review of Sociology, 37, 461–479.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. D. (2002). Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Raudenbush, S. W., & Bryk, A. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A. (2003). Comparison of public and academic discourses: Estonian individualism and collectivism revisited. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 9, 47–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., & Allik, J. (2009). On the relationship between social capital and individualism–collectivism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Allik, J., & Greenfield, B. (2008). Radius of trust: Social capital in relation to familism and institutional collectivism. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39, 447–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Allik, J., & Vadi, M. (1997). The hierarchical structure of collectivism. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 93–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Realo, A., Koido, K., Ceulemans, E., & Allik, J. (2002). Three components of individualism. European Journal of Personality, 16, 163–184.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ringdal, K. (2013). Learning multilevel analysis. Retrieved March 25, 2016, from European Social Survey Education Net. http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/multilevel/ch3/1.html

  • Rothstein, B. (2002). Sweden: Social capital in the social democratic state. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of social capital in contemporary society (pp. 289–331). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2008). Socio-economic payoffs of voluntary association involvement. A Dutch life course study. European Sociological Review, 21, 1–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saxton, G. D., & Benson, M. A. (2005). Social capital and the growth of the nonprofit sector. Social Science Quarterly, 86, 16–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Beck, R. (2008). Mass media and social capital in Europe: Evidence from multilevel analyses. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002 (pp. 159–187). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Beyond individualism/collectivism: New cultural dimensions of values. In U. Kim, H. C. Triandis, Ç. Kagitçibasi, S. C. Choi, & G. Yoon (Eds.), Individualism and collectivism: Theory, method, and applications (pp. 85–119). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2004a). Human values. Retrieved January 27, 2015 from European Social Survey Education Net. http://essedunet.nsd.uib.no/cms/topics/1/4/all.html

  • Schwartz, S. (2004b). Mapping and interpreting cultural differences around the world. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures. Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 43–73). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (2007). Value orientations: Measurement, antecedents and consequences across nations. In R. Jowell, C. Roberts, & R. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Measuring attitudes crossnationally—Lessons from the European Social Survey (pp. 161–193). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., et al. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(4), 663–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., Melech, G., Lehmann, A., Burgess, S., Harris, M., & Owens, V. (2001). Extending the cross-cultural validity of the theory of basic human values with a different method of measurement. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32, 519–542.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, P. B., & Schwartz, S. H. (1997). Values. In J. W. Berry, M. H. Segall, & C. Kagitcibasi (Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 77–118). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Economist Intelligence Unit. (2013). Democracy index 2012. Democracy at a standstill. A report from The Economist Intelligence Unit. Retrieved from, http://www.eiu.com/public/topical_report.aspx?campaignid=DemocracyIndex12. Accessed June 15, 2015.

  • Trommsdorff, G., Mayer, B., & Albert, I. (2004). Dimensions of culture in intra-cultural comparisons. Individualism/collectivism and family-related values in three generations. In H. Vinken, J. Soeters, & P. Ester (Eds.), Comparing cultures. Dimensions of culture in a comparative perspective (pp. 157–179). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (1999). Democracy and social capital. In M. Warren (Ed.), Democracy and trust (pp. 121–150). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2000). Producing and consuming trust. Political Science Quarterly, 115(4), 569–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Uslaner, E. M. (2002). The moral foundations of trust. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • van der Meer, T., Scheepers, P., & de Grotenhuis, M. (2008). Does the state affect the informal connections between its citizens? New institutionalist explanations of social participation in everyday life. In H. Meulemann (Ed.), Social capital in Europe: Similarity of countries and diversity of people? Multi-level analyses of the European Social Survey 2002 (pp. 41–72). Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M. (2015). Generalized trust: Four lessons from genetics and culture. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 24, 71–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Lange, P. A. M., Vinkhuyzen, A. A. E., & Posthuma, D. (2014). Genetic influences are virtually absent for trust. PLoS ONE, 9(4), e93880. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0093880.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verkasalo, M., Lönnqvist, J.-E., Lipsanen, J., & Helkama, K. (2009). European norms and equations for a two dimensional presentation of values as measured with Schwartz’s 21-item portrait values questionnaire. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 780–792.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von dem Knesebeck, O., Dragano, N., & Siegrist, J. (2005). Social capital and self-rated health in 21 European countries. GMS Psycho-Social-Medicine, 2, 1–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, P. F. (2000). Economic growth and social capital. Political Studies, 48, 443–466.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development. Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wuthnow, R. (2002). The United States: Bridging the privileged and the marginalized. In R. Putnam (Ed.), Democracies in flux: The evolution of generalized social trust in contemporary society (pp. 59–102). New York: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Yamagishi, T., & Yamagishi, M. (1993). Trust and commitment in the United States and Japan. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 129–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zmerli, S., & Newton, K. (2008). Social trust and attitudes toward democracy. Public Opinion Quarterly, 72, 706–724.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Preparation of this manuscript was supported by the University of Tartu (SP1GVARENG) and by institutional research funding (IUT2-13) from the Estonian Ministry of Education and Science. Anu Realo was supported by a grant from the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study in the Humanities and Social Sciences (NIAS) while writing this article. We thank Jüri Allik and Delaney Michael Skerrett for their helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Social Studies, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, 51003, Tartu, Estonia

    Mai Beilmann

  2. Institute of Psychology, University of Tartu, Tartu, Estonia

    Liisi Kööts-Ausmees & Anu Realo

  3. Department of Psychology, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK

    Anu Realo

Authors
  1. Mai Beilmann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Liisi Kööts-Ausmees
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Anu Realo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mai Beilmann.

Appendix: The List of Human Values Items in European Social Survey Questionnaire

Appendix: The List of Human Values Items in European Social Survey Questionnaire

(1) Important to think up new ideas and be creative

(2) Important to be rich, have money and expensive things

(3) Important that people are treated equally and have equal opportunities

(4) Important to show abilities and be admired

(5) Important to live in secure and safe surroundings

(6) Important to try new and different things in life

(7) Important to do what is told and follow rules

(8) Important to understand different people

(9) Important to be humble and modest, not draw attention

(10) Important to have a good time

(11) Important to make own decisions and be free

(12) Important to help people and care for others’ well-being

(13) Important to be successful and that people recognize achievements

(14) Important that government is strong and ensures safety

(15) Important to seek adventures and have an exciting life

(16) Important to behave properly

(17) Important to get respect from others

(18) Important to be loyal to friends and devoted to people close

(19) Important to care for nature and environment

(20) Important to follow traditions and customs

(21) Important to seek fun and things that give pleasure

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Beilmann, M., Kööts-Ausmees, L. & Realo, A. The Relationship Between Social Capital and Individualism–Collectivism in Europe. Soc Indic Res 137, 641–664 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1614-4

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1614-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation