Bonding personal social capital as an ingredient for positive aging and mental well-being. A study among a sample of Dutch elderly

Figures & data

Table 1. Demographic variables (n = 328).

Gender	Male 68.6% (n = 225)	Female 31.4% (n = 103)
Partner	yes 78% (n = 256)	no 22%(n = 72)
Residential situation	independent 97% (n = 317)	independent with care at home .01% (n = 4)	living in with son/daughter .003% (n = 1)
Work	yes .03% (n = 10)	retired 93% (n = 305)	never worked .04% (n = 13)
Health (self-report)	good to excellent 91% (n = 300)	moderate .08% (n = 27)	poor .003% (n = 1)

Table 2. Descriptives and reliability of scales (n = 328).

	α	N (items)	Mean	SD	Min	Max
PSCSE	.89	10	27.36	5.22	13.25	44.13
PSCSE-bonding	.88	5	15.17	2.81	7.75	22.75
PSCSE-bridging	.87	5	12.19	3.17	5.50	22.38
Social participation (MSSP)	.84	25	1.03	.39	.16	2.52
Loneliness	.76	6	1.33	.38	1.00	3.00
Social well-being	.76	5	3.59	1.08	1.00	6.00
Psychological well-being	.85	6	4.34	1.06	1.00	6.00
Emotional well-being	.83	3	4.93	.90	1.00	6.00

Table 3. Pattern matrix with loadings of PSCSE items (n = 328).

	Component
	1	2
bridg5	.872
bridg2	.842
bridg3	.757
bridg4	.754
bridg1	.579
bond5	.440	–.409
bond4		–.858
bond2		–.847
bond3		–.812
bond1		–.726

Note: Extraction: Maximum Likelihood. Rotation: Oblimin with Kaiser Normalization.

Table 4. Results of testing construct validity of the PSCSE.

	Total Social Capital			Bridging Social Capital			Bonding Social Capital
	Mean	SD		Mean	SD		Mean	SD
Education
Low (high school or lower) (N = 193)	26.92*	5.05		11.87*	3.08		15.04	2.73
High (undergraduate degree or higher) (N = 135)	27.99	5.40		12.63	3.25		15.36	2.92
	t(326) = –1.832, p =.034 Effect size = .21			t(326) = –2.136, p =.017 Effect size = .24			t(326) = –.996, p =.160 Effect size = .11
	Mean		SD	Mean		SD	Mean		SD
Financial resources
Definitely enough (N = 181)	28.48***		5.39	12.83***		3.30	15.65***		2.93
Maybe/maybe not enough (N = 147)	26.98		4.66	11.40		2.82	14.59		2.55
	t(326)= 4.426, p=.000 Effect size = .30			t(326)= 4.164, p=.000 Effect size = .46			t(326)= 3.472, p=.001 Effect size = .38
	Mean		SD	Mean		SD	Mean		SD
Participating in volunteer work
Not participating in volunteer work (N = 171)	25.92***		5.42	11.07***		3.14	14.85*		3.03
Participating in volunteer work (N = 157)	28.92		4.52	13.39		2.73	15.53		2.51
	t(323.042)= –5.463, p=.000 Effect size = .60			t(325.110)= –7.151, p=.000 Effect size = .79			t(322.795)= –2.217, p=.014 Effect size = .24

Note: Student’s T-test (1-tailed) for mean differences, *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001. Effect sizes have been calculated using Hedges’ g.

Table 5. Results of testing criterion validity of PSCSE: Regression coefficients (B) of associations theoretically concurrent relevant measures and social capital (N = 328).

dependent variable	Total Social Capital			Bridging Social Capital			Bonding Social Capital
predictor	B(SE)	95% CI		B(SE)	95% CI		B(SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL		LL	UL		LL	UL
Social participation-frequency	.47*(.05)	.38	.56	.34*(.05)	.24	.43	.49*(.05)	.40	.59
	F(4.323) = 44.33, p = .000			F(4,323) = 34.51, p=.000			F(4,323) = 31.80, p=.000
Social participation-diversity	.45*(.05)	.35	.54	.35*(.05)	.25	.44	.44*(.05)	.34	.54
	F(4,323) = 38.57, p = .000			F(4,323) = 34.37, p = .000			F(4,323) = 23.44, p = .000

Note: Regression analysis, with standardized scores of included core variables. Model: Enter, *p≤ .001. Education, financial resources and participation in volunteer work were included as confounders in all analyses.

Table 6. Results of regression analysis of association between bonding and bridging social capital and well-being (sub)scales (N = 328).

dependent variable	Emotional well-being			Psychological well-being			Social well-being
predictor	B(SE)	95% CI		B(SE)	95% CI		B(SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL		LL	UL		LL	UL
age	−.02 (.01)	−.04	.00	−.02 (.01)	−.04	.00	−.01 (.01)	−.04	.01
gender	.28* (.12)	.03	.52	.43*** (.12)	.19	.67	.13 (.12)	−.09	.36
partner	−.04 (.14)	−.32	.23	–.28* (.14)	−.55	−.02	−.23 (.31)	−.49	.02
health	.15* (.06)	.03	.27	.08 (.06)	−.04	.20	.05 (.06)	−.07	.16
bonding social capital	.22** (.06)	.09	.34	.23*** (.06)	.11	.35	.25* (.06)	.13	.36
bridging social capital	−.03 (.06)	−.15	.09	.10 (.06)	−.02	.22	.25* (.06)	.13	.36
	Adj. R^2 = .08 F(6,321)=5.71, p=.000			Adj. R^2 = .12 F(6,321)=8.62, p=.000			Adj. R^2 = .19 F(6,321)=13.61, p=.000

Note: Model: Enter, *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001. Standardised scores were included for emotional well-being, psychological well-being, social well-being, bonding social capital and bridging social capital.

Table 7. Results of mediation analysis (PROCESS) with loneliness as mediating variable in the association between bonding social capital and subscales of well-being (N = 328).

dependent variable	Emotional well-being			Psychological well-being			Social well-being
predictor	B(SE)	95%CI		B(SE)	95% CI		B(SE)	95% CI
		LL	UL		LL	UL		LL	UL
Bonding social capital	.06 (.07)	−.08	.19	.06 (.07)	−.07	.19	.14* (.07)	.00	.27
Loneliness	−.29*** (.06)	−.41	−.17	−.31*** (.06)	−.43	−.19	−.21*** (.06)	−.32	−.09
Bridging social capital	−.02 (.06)	−.14	.19	.11 (.06)	−.00	.23	.25*** (.06)	.14	.37
Age	−.03* (.01)	−.05	−.01	−.03* (.01)	−.05	−.01	−.02 (.01)	−.04	.00
Gender	.20 (.12)	−.04	.43	.34** (.12)	.12	.57	.08 (.11)	−.15	.30
Partner	−.15 (.14)	−.42	.12	−.40** (.13)	−.66	−.14	−.31* (.13)	−.57	.05
Health	.13* (.06)	.02	.25	.06 (.06)	.05	.18	.03 (.06)	−.08	.15
Mediating variable: Loneliness
	B (SE)	95%CI		B (SE)	95%CI		B (SE)	95%CI
		LL	UL		LL	UL		LL	UL
Total	.22 (.06)	.09	.34	.23 (.06)	.11	.35	.25 (.06)	.13	.36
Indirect path	.16 (.05)	.07	.25	.17 (.04)	.09	.25	.11 (.03)	.05	.18
Sobel test	z = 4.41***			z = .4.66***			z = 3.33***

Note: PROCESS Mediation analysis (model 4) with standardised scores of included core variables. *p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01, ***p ≤ .001. Number of bootstrap samples: 5000.