The Effects of Media Forms on Social Capital across European Welfare Regimes: A Multiple Group Structural Equation Modelling Approach (MG-SEM) Boris Kragelj,

The Effects of Media Forms on Social The Effects of Media Forms on Social Capital across European Welfare Capital across European Welfare

Regimes: A Multiple Group Structural Regimes: A Multiple Group Structural Equation Modelling Approach (MG-Equation Modelling Approach (MG-

SEM)SEM)

Boris Kragelj, B. Comm.Boris Kragelj, B. Comm. Léan McMahon, Léan McMahon, B.Soc.Sc., M.Soc.Sc.B.Soc.Sc., M.Soc.Sc.Faculty of Social SciencesFaculty of Social Sciences School of SociologySchool of SociologyUniversity of Ljubljana, Slovenia University of Ljubljana, Slovenia University College University College Dublin, IrelandDublin, Ireland

Geoffrey Hammond, B.Sc.Geoffrey Hammond, B.Sc.Department of PsychiatryDepartment of PsychiatryUniversity of Cambridge, EnglandUniversity of Cambridge, England

ESF Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences ESF Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences (QMSS) Conference(QMSS) Conference

Prague, 20Prague, 20thth – 23 – 23rdrd June 2007 June 2007

Quantitative Methods . in the Social Sciences

BackgroundBackground

The ideas for this paper were originally conceived during the QMSS course, entitled ‘Theory and Practice in the Analysis of Cross-National Cross-Sectional Data: Structural Equation Modelling’ (August 2005, University of Oxford).

The paper was developed and analysis conducted by the researchers in June 2006 in the University of Cambridge, funded by the QMSS Short Visit Competition.

Quantitative Methods in the Social Sciences

Structure of presentationStructure of presentation

BACKGROUNDBACKGROUND

1. 1. THEORYTHEORY and LITERATURE and LITERATURE

– Media effects / Social Media effects / Social capitalcapital

– Macro-structural approaches: Regime types Macro-structural approaches: Regime types and sand social ocial capitalcapital

2. RESEARCH 2. RESEARCH QUESTIONQUESTION and HYPOTHESES and HYPOTHESES

3. DATA and3. DATA and VARIABLES VARIABLES

4. METHOD and ANALYSIS4. METHOD and ANALYSIS

5. 5. RESULTSRESULTS

6. 6. CONCLUSIONCONCLUSIONS and DISCUSSIONS and DISCUSSION


1.1. THEORY and THEORY and LITERATURELITERATURE


Media effectsMedia effects

• New media displaces New media displaces consumption of traditional consumption of traditional media formsmedia forms– TTVV ( (when introducedwhen introduced) ) displaced displaced radio radio

listening and newspaper reading listening and newspaper reading (Coffin 1955; Bogart 1956)(Coffin 1955; Bogart 1956)

– Is Is the Internet displacing TV?the Internet displacing TV? (Dimaggio et(Dimaggio et a al 2001)l 2001)


Social capital definitionsSocial capital definitions

• What do we understand by ‘social capital’?

Contentious, multi-faceted and slippery term…

OECD definition: “Social capital is networks together with shared norms, values and understandings that facilitate cooperation within or among groups” (Cote & Healy 2001)

“The resources of information, norms and social relations embedded in communities that enable people to coordinate collective action and to achieve common goals” (Shah, McLeod et al 2001: 465)

Putnam (1993) stresses Durkheimian sense of socialisation of individuals into shared norms and cooperative societal action… social networks and norms of reciprocity


Operationalisation of social Operationalisation of social capitalcapital

• Our operationalisation of social capital uses 3 individual-level indicators:

Social participation (Dekker & Uslaner 2001; Putnam 1996; 2000)

Civic engagement [x2] (Brehm & Rahn 1997, 1990; Uslaner 1998)

Generalised trust [x2] (Uslaner 1999; Anheier & Kendall 2002; Sullivan & Transue 1999)


Media effects and social Media effects and social capitalcapital

• TelevisionTelevision– Social/technological changes Social/technological changes destroy destroy

community community (Tönnies 1887)(Tönnies 1887)

– TV leads to decline in civic involvement TV leads to decline in civic involvement and social activism and social activism (Putnam 1996, 2000)(Putnam 1996, 2000); ; dampens participation dampens participation (Brehm & Rahn (Brehm & Rahn 1997)1997)

– TV incurs lack of trust TV incurs lack of trust (Uslaner 1998)(Uslaner 1998)

– Critique of Putnam Critique of Putnam (Skocpol 2003)(Skocpol 2003)


Media effects and social Media effects and social capitalcapital

• InternetInternet– Lack of longitudinal research and informationLack of longitudinal research and information– Erodes social connections Erodes social connections (Kraut et al 1998; Nie & Erbring 2000)(Kraut et al 1998; Nie & Erbring 2000); ;

takes people away from communities and families takes people away from communities and families (Slouka (Slouka

1995; Stoll 1995);1995; Stoll 1995); an “isolating medium” an “isolating medium” ((Nie 2001)Nie 2001)

– Supports neighbouring and facilitates discussion/mobilisation Supports neighbouring and facilitates discussion/mobilisation around local issuesaround local issues ((Hampton & Wellman 2003)Hampton & Wellman 2003)

– Provides information; sphere of political expression Provides information; sphere of political expression (Shah et al (Shah et al 2005)2005)

– Influencing changes in society “away from groups and Influencing changes in society “away from groups and towards networked individualism” towards networked individualism” (Wellman et al 2003)(Wellman et al 2003)


Macro-structural Macro-structural approachesapproaches

• StructureStructure: Fixed, largely beyond the power of agents to : Fixed, largely beyond the power of agents to alteralter

• Society-centered approachesSociety-centered approaches: : Society’s capacity to Society’s capacity to produce social capital is determined by long-term produce social capital is determined by long-term experiences of social organisation anchored in history experiences of social organisation anchored in history and culture and culture (Banfield 1958; Fukuyama 1999; Putnam 2000; (Banfield 1958; Fukuyama 1999; Putnam 2000; Skocpol 2003Skocpol 2003))

• Institution-centered: Institution-centered: Social capital isSocial capital is embedded in and embedded in and linked to formal political and legal institutions linked to formal political and legal institutions (Berman (Berman 1997; Hall 1999; Levi 1998; Rothstein & Kumlin 2001; Stolle 2002)1997; Hall 1999; Levi 1998; Rothstein & Kumlin 2001; Stolle 2002)


Welfare regime theoryWelfare regime theory

Countries fit into a typology based on Countries fit into a typology based on approaches to welfare spending and social approaches to welfare spending and social rights rights (Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999; Janoski(Esping-Andersen 1990, 1999; Janoski 1998)1998)

• Liberal Liberal (most English-speaking countries, e.g. (most English-speaking countries, e.g. USA, Canada, Australia)USA, Canada, Australia)

• Social democratic Social democratic (e.g. Scandinavian (e.g. Scandinavian countries)countries)

• Corporatist Corporatist (e.g. continental European countries)(e.g. continental European countries)

Regime types and social Regime types and social capital capital

• Regime type influences social capital: Political Regime type influences social capital: Political structures shape the institutional means to structures shape the institutional means to pursue civic engagement and thereby pursue civic engagement and thereby influence the possibilities for individual action influence the possibilities for individual action (Skocpol et al, 2000)(Skocpol et al, 2000). .

– All indicators of social capital are reportedly high in All indicators of social capital are reportedly high in social democratic regimes social democratic regimes (Kumlin and Rothstein 2003)(Kumlin and Rothstein 2003)

– Social capital, apart from trust Social capital, apart from trust (Inglehart 1999; Uslaner (Inglehart 1999; Uslaner 2002),2002), tends to be high in liberal regimestends to be high in liberal regimes

– Social capital is reported to be fluctuating in Social capital is reported to be fluctuating in corporatist regimes, e.g. Italy corporatist regimes, e.g. Italy (Putnam 1993)(Putnam 1993), , Germany Germany (Offe and Fuchs 2002)(Offe and Fuchs 2002)


Welfare and social capital: Welfare and social capital: RationaleRationale

• ConservativesConservatives: Welfare crowds out ‘natural’ networks : Welfare crowds out ‘natural’ networks of association (e.g. families, communities) of association (e.g. families, communities) (Wolfe 1989)(Wolfe 1989); ; social structures erode; commitment and trust decline social structures erode; commitment and trust decline (Zijderveld, 1998)(Zijderveld, 1998); potentially leads to consumerism, ; potentially leads to consumerism, selfishness, hedonism.selfishness, hedonism.

• ProgressivesProgressives: Welfare supports networks of : Welfare supports networks of association and enhances civil society association and enhances civil society (Kuhnle and (Kuhnle and Alestalo, 2000)Alestalo, 2000); encourages civic participation ; encourages civic participation (Rothstein, (Rothstein, 2001)2001); welfare states alleviate worst excesses of ; welfare states alleviate worst excesses of market reform market reform (Rothstein, 2003)(Rothstein, 2003)..

– Dependency thesis Dependency thesis welfare induces dependency; erodes welfare induces dependency; erodes social capitalsocial capital

– Division thesis Division thesis welfare cuts back on mutual obligation; welfare cuts back on mutual obligation; socially divisivesocially divisive


Past empirical studiesPast empirical studies• Most analysis of the social impact of the Internet uses cross-Most analysis of the social impact of the Internet uses cross-

sectional data (e.g., Katz & Rice, 2002; LaRose et al., 2001).sectional data (e.g., Katz & Rice, 2002; LaRose et al., 2001).

• Some studies use longitudinal analysis of change, e.g. Some studies use longitudinal analysis of change, e.g. hierarchical linear models (e.g. hierarchical linear models (e.g. Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987, 1992; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1987, 1992; Singer & Willett, 2003);Singer & Willett, 2003);

• Shklovski et al (2004) used cross-sectional analysis Shklovski et al (2004) used cross-sectional analysis andand hierarchical linear growth models to estimate effects of Internet hierarchical linear growth models to estimate effects of Internet use on social participation. Their cross-sectional results suggest use on social participation. Their cross-sectional results suggest that Internet use is associated with more social involvement; that Internet use is associated with more social involvement; longitudinal analysis suggests greater use of the Internet caused longitudinal analysis suggests greater use of the Internet caused respondents to decrease social contacts.respondents to decrease social contacts.

• Shah et al (2005) used SEM to test Shah et al (2005) used SEM to test the role of the Internet as a the role of the Internet as a source of political information and a sphere for public expression.source of political information and a sphere for public expression.

• Our study Our study the same the same measure of social capital and same method measure of social capital and same method for testing for testing all all media effects across different welfare regimesmedia effects across different welfare regimes


2. RESEARCH QUESTION 2. RESEARCH QUESTION and HYPOTHESESand HYPOTHESES

• Research questionResearch question– To conduct multiple group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) to To conduct multiple group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) to

test a casual relationship between media consumption and social test a casual relationship between media consumption and social capital, across five European welfare regimes.capital, across five European welfare regimes.

• Hypothesis 1Hypothesis 1– That That Internet Internet usageusage displaces TV displaces TV v vieiewwinging..

• Hypothesis 2Hypothesis 2– That television That television viewing and Internet usage have different effects on viewing and Internet usage have different effects on

different dimensions of social capital, as measured in terms of social different dimensions of social capital, as measured in terms of social participation, civic engagement and trust.participation, civic engagement and trust.

• Hypothesis 3Hypothesis 3– That television viewing and Internet usage are associated with people’s That television viewing and Internet usage are associated with people’s

levels of social capital in different ways that depend on the particular levels of social capital in different ways that depend on the particular political/welfare regime of the country in which they reside.political/welfare regime of the country in which they reside.


Theoretical model: Multiple Group Theoretical model: Multiple Group comparison with Structural comparison with Structural

Equation ModelEquation Model

Internet usage

TV viewing

Social participation

Interpersonal trust

Civic engagement

WELFARE REGIMES


4. DATA and VARIABLES4. DATA and VARIABLES

• DataData– European Social Survey, Round Two European Social Survey, Round Two

(2004)(2004)– 24 countries; 5 clusters/regimes24 countries; 5 clusters/regimes– Total sample size=45,681Total sample size=45,681– Mean sample size per country=1,903 Mean sample size per country=1,903

(ranging from 579 (Iceland) to 3,026 (ranging from 579 (Iceland) to 3,026 (Czech Republic))(Czech Republic))


VariablesVariables[Endogenous] Social Ptp. Meet friends, relatives / Social activities / Social

organisations/ Helping peoplePer. Trust Most people… can be trusted vs. you can’t be too

careful / try to take advantage vs. be fair / helpful vs. look out for t’selves

Per. Civ. Eng. Voted / Wore campaign badge / Contact politician / Signed petition / Boycotted products / Took part in protest, demo

Inst. Trust In… Parliament / Legal system / Police / Politicians / Political parties / European Parliament / United Nations

Inst. Civ. Eng. Member political party / Worked political party, action gp. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Exogenous] TV viewing Hours per day InternetUse the Internet, WWW or Email

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Demographics:

Age Year of birth

Education Years of full-time education completed

Income Household’s total net income, all sourcesQuantitative Methods in the Social Sciences

Clusters of European Clusters of European countries countries (N=24)(N=24)

SOCDEM LIB/ CORP

‘Mixed’ Finland UK Austria

Denmark Ireland Belgium Norway

France Sweden Germany

Netherlands Luxembourg Iceland Switzerland (Esping-Andersen 1990; Janoski 1998; Olafsson 2003)

POSTCOM

Czech Rep. Estonia

Hungary

Poland

Slovakia

Slovenia

Ukraine

(Deacon 1993, 2000)

Preferable label: ‘Emerging democratic’?

MEDTERR Greece Portugal Spain

(Saint-Arnaud & Bernard 2003; Flaquer 2000; Ferrera 1996)


3. METHOD and ANALYSIS3. METHOD and ANALYSIS

• Multiple group structural equation modelling Multiple group structural equation modelling (MG-SEM) on data from the ESS (2004) using (MG-SEM) on data from the ESS (2004) using MPLUS (maximum likelihood estimation (MLE));MPLUS (maximum likelihood estimation (MLE));

• Analysis was dAnalysis was diivided into vided into 44 sections: sections:– Construction of meConstruction of measasurement model for sociurement model for sociaal capital (l capital (5 5

latent latent correlated correlated factors,factors, single SEM model for whole single SEM model for whole sample)sample)

– Estimation of media effects on social capital factors, Estimation of media effects on social capital factors, controlled for spurious effects of demographic variables controlled for spurious effects of demographic variables ((ssingle SEM model foingle SEM model forr whole sample) whole sample)

– Comparison of social capital factors (means) across Comparison of social capital factors (means) across welfare regimes (Multiple group mesurement model)welfare regimes (Multiple group mesurement model)

– Estimation of media effects across welfare regimes (full Estimation of media effects across welfare regimes (full multiple group SEM model)multiple group SEM model)


5. RESULTS5. RESULTS


MeasurementMeasurement model model of of social capitalsocial capital

trstun trstlgl trstplc trstprl trstplt trstprt

ppltrst pplfair pplhlp

sclact sclmeet

bctprd badge sgnptit pbldmn

contplt wrkprty wrkorg

INSTITUTIONAL TRUST

INTERPERSONAL TRUST

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

PERSONAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

INSTITUTIONAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT


Social capital variable: Social capital variable: CFACFA

Factors of social capitalindicators SOCPTP PER.TRST PER.CIV.ENG. INST.TRST INST.CIV.ENG. *sclact 0.612 *sclmeet 0.640 ppltrst 0.799 pplfair 0.735 pplhlp 0.659 *badge 0.916 *sgnptit 0.939 *pbldmn 0.526 *bctprd 0.848 trstprl 0.765 trstlgl 0.780 trstplc 0.684 trstplt 0.732 trstprt 0.728 trstun 0.618 *contplt 0.576*wrkprty 0.604*wrkorg 0.906

* Categorical variablesQuantitative Methods in the Social Sciences

Factor correlationsFactor correlations

SOCPTP PER. TRST PER. CE INST. TRST INST. CE

SOCPTP1 0.217 0.170 0.115 0.284

PER.TRST 0.217 1 - 0.443 -

PER. CE0.170 - 1 - 0.394

INST. TRST0.115 0.443 - 1

INST.CE0.284 - 0.394 - 1


Error terms (co-variances) Error terms (co-variances) between factor itemsbetween factor items

SOCPTP PERTRST PER. CE INSTRST INST. CE

sclact sclmt ppltrst pplfair pplhlp badge sgnptit pbldmn bctprd trstprl trstlgl trstplc trstplt trstprt trstun contplt wrkprty wrkorg

SOCPTPsclact 0,14

sclmeet 0,14

PERTSTppltrst -0,17

pplfair

pplhlp -0,17

PER. CEbadge 0.37 0.40 -0.26

sgnptit 0.37 0.27

pbldmn -0.13 -0.28

bctprd 0.40 0.27

INSTRSTtrstprl 0.16 0.13

trstlgl 0.13

trstplc 0.13 0.13 0.33

trstplt 0.16

trstprt 0.13 0.33

trstun

INST.CEcontplt -0.25

wrkprty -0.26 -0.28 -0.25

wrkorg

SOCDEM

POSTCOM


Full SEMFull SEM ( (MIMICMIMIC) ) one one group group modelmodel

trstun trstlgl trstplc trstprl trstplt trstprt

ppltrst pplfair pplhlp

sclact sclmeet

bctprd badge sgnptit pbldmn

contplt wrkprty wrkorg

INSTITUTIONAL TRUST

INTERPERSONAL TRUST

SOCIAL PARTICIPATION

PERSONAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

INSTITUTIONAL CIVIC ENGAGEMENT

INTERNET USE

TV WATCH: total

TV WATCH: news & political affairs

AGE

EDUCATION

INCOME


Tests of model fit:CFI

0.929TLI

0.941RMSEA

0.042WRMR

5.869

Causal model: Estimates Causal model: Estimates and model fit statisticsand model fit statistics

NET TVTOT TVPOL SOCPTP PER.TRST PER.CE INST.TRST INST.CE

NET* 1,00 0,23 0,20 0,17 0,19 0,24

TVTOT* -0,10 1,00 -0,07 -0,06 -0,17 -0,03 -0,17

TVPOL* 0,01 0,49 1,00 0,11 0,07 0,15 0,09 0,16

Income 0,32 -0,13 0,03 0,12 0,25 0,14 0,27 0,18

Education 0,26 -0,13 0,06 ns 0,06 0,12 ns 0,13

Age 0,43 -0,20 -0,30 0,22 -0,10 0,08 -0,07 0,13

* categorical


R-square 0.191 0.172 0.173 0.156 0.232

Multiple group Multiple group SEM modelSEM model: : Media effects across welfare Media effects across welfare

regimesregimes SOCPTP PER. TRST PER. CE INST.TRST INST. CE

SOCDEM NET 0.275* 0.061* 0.229* 0.131* 0.205*

Tvtot -0.095* -0.069* -0.146* -0.077* -0.170*

LIB/MIXED NET 0.210* n.s. 0.267* n.s 0.180*

TVtot n.s. n.s. -0.094* n.s -0.099*

CORP NET 0.347* 0.114* 0.234* 0.104* 0.224*

TVtot n.s. -0.120* -0.158* -0.072* -0.127*

POSCOM NET 0.394* 0.205* 0.144* 0.171* 0.164*

TVtot n.s. 0.043* n.s. 0.046* n.s.

MEDTERR NET 0.314* 0.198* 0.326* 0.073* 0.229*

TVtot -0.146* -0.069* -0.088* 0.169* -0.028*

* Significance 5%


Tests of model fit:CFI

0.906TLI

0.948RMSEA

0.043WRMR

4.299

Means of social capital Means of social capital factorsfactors

-0,60

-0,40

-0,20

0,00

0,20

0,40

0,60

Inst. Trust Interpers. Trust Soc. Participation Pers. Civ.

Engagement

Inst. Civ.

Engagement

SOCDEM LIB CORP POSTCOM MEDTERR TotalQuantitative Methods in the Social Sciences

6. CONCLUSIONS and 6. CONCLUSIONS and DISCUSSIONDISCUSSION


ConclusionsConclusions• H1:H1:

– Yes.Yes. Internet us Internet usage age displaces TVdisplaces TV v vieiewwinging..

• H2:H2:– No. Television No. Television viewing and Internet usage viewing and Internet usage dodo nnoot t have different effects on different have different effects on different

dimensions of social capital, as measured in terms of social participation, civic dimensions of social capital, as measured in terms of social participation, civic engagement and trust.engagement and trust. Internet Internet usage increases, while TV diminishes, all forms of usage increases, while TV diminishes, all forms of social capital.social capital.

– TV TV watching news/politics/current affairs programmes is more akin to Internet usage watching news/politics/current affairs programmes is more akin to Internet usage than TV watching in general, in terms of the effects on social capital. This may be due than TV watching in general, in terms of the effects on social capital. This may be due to the more interactive and less escapist nature of such programming.to the more interactive and less escapist nature of such programming.

• HH33: : – For the most part, no. The welfare regime of the country in which people reside mostly For the most part, no. The welfare regime of the country in which people reside mostly

does not affect the relationship between media consumption and does not affect the relationship between media consumption and social capitalsocial capital..– However, exceptions However, exceptions IIn n Liberal/Mixed regimes, no media form has an effect on Liberal/Mixed regimes, no media form has an effect on

trust…trust…– IIn n post-Communist and Mediterranean countries, both TV and Internet have positive post-Communist and Mediterranean countries, both TV and Internet have positive

effects on trusteffects on trust

• OTHER:OTHER:– ButBut level of (different forms of) social capital varies significantly across welfare level of (different forms of) social capital varies significantly across welfare

regimes…regimes…


• Methodological Methodological discussiondiscussion::– Problems Problems with running full with running full SEM SEM multiple multiple

groupgroup model (no model (no convergence convergence))– Problems of multi-colinearity with media Problems of multi-colinearity with media

consumption suggest better measurement…consumption suggest better measurement…

• Future researchFuture research::– Level of (different forms of) social capital Level of (different forms of) social capital

varies significantly across welfare regimes. To varies significantly across welfare regimes. To eexplain xplain the differences in social capital across the differences in social capital across welfare regimes… applying multilevel analysis.welfare regimes… applying multilevel analysis.

DiscussionDiscussion


Documents

The Effects of Media Forms on Social Capital across European Welfare Regimes: A Multiple Group Structural Equation Modelling Approach (MG-SEM) Boris Kragelj,