Testing the Importance of Spatial Distance on Social Network Resources

Background: Social theory has noted how the routine, informal interactions of daily life create opportunities for social life and mutual assistance (i.e., bonding social capital). However, where one lives is but one context that determines social capital, defined by Bourdieu as access to potential resources in a social network. Neighborhood effects have been emphasized in social capital research as predictive of instrumental (e.g., financial outcomes) and expressive (e.g., intrinsic) returns. Indeed, studies have found that neighborhood conditions explain a small percentage of variance of social capital resources even after controlling for resident's individual characteristics. On the other hand, the social network literature finds that social capital resources can be generated in different kinds of social spaces. For example, people generate social capital at the workplace, religious congregations, and civic organizations. Little research has examined if the spatial distance to these social network resources matters. Theory suggests that people generate more social capital where they live. Our study contributes to the literature by testing the association between the spatial distance to social capital resources and the amount of resources at each of the three aforementioned sites. This is important to social workers who engage, assess, and intervene at the neighborhood level to increase well-being.

Methods: Data are from an online cross-sectional survey of African American adults in the Atlanta Metropolitan area (n=691). A national marketing research firm drew these participants from their panel. We measured social capital using the 25 item Resource Generator-US (RG-US), which assesses social capital resources available via specified social relationships (e.g., knowing a doctor, plumber, or lawyer). We created a measure of network-specific social capital for the workplace (n=437), religious congregations (n=564), and community groups (n=698) by summing responses to the RG-US categories by site. Respondents indicated distance in miles travelled to each of the three sites. We used Poisson regression to estimate the association. Because the distance variable had an extreme maximum value of 500 miles, we Winsorized it to the 95^th percentile. For civic groups and religious congregation capital, we controlled for attendance.

Results: Social network resource access is associated with distance for each of the three networks sites; however, religious congregation capital was not significant when controlling for attendance. Work capital (b = .007, p = .004), civic group capital (b = .019, p<.0001), and religious capital (b = .007, p = .001) were each significant.

Implications: The spatial distance from home to social spaces matters for social capital resources, but in the opposite direction than theory suggests. Our study adds to prior studies by demonstrating that the further one travels from home to three key sites, the higher the resources. These social spaces may provide access to heterogeneous resource networks (i.e., bridging social capital) not available within one’s neighborhood. Plausibly, distance matters in terms of drawing resources for both instrumental and expressive gains. Social work researchers should consider not only neighborhood effects, but the context of other spaces. Practitioners need to intervene in multiple social spaces to impact well-being outcomes.