Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Submitted to Dr. Toth in partial fulfillment of the requirements for SOC 4360
INTRODUCTION
Social ties within neighborhoods is a commonly, growing issue within the American
society. Sociologists have used the concept of social ties to describe the relationships among
rather than within communities, a semantic technique that achieves its effect by drawing upon
the idea of literally isolated individuals and extending it metaphorically to the neighborhood or
group level (Klinenberg 2015). Ties to neighbors can be vital components of a vibrant social life.
Variables that are associated with social ties within neighborhoods are race, gender, age, political
views, income, and class. This paper studies the societal factors that may influence social ties
within neighborhoods and in the future may serve as a need or justification to help understand
what neighborhoods are more isolated than others. This is important to study because it seems
that the viability of the neighborhood as a basis of social interaction should be decreasing,
communications have enhanced the possibility of social ties over long distances (Guest &
Wierzbicki 1999).
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Racial Influences
neighborhoods most often defined by an increase in affluence and white residents suggest that
ties between new residents should be strong, while the changing neighbor-hood dynamics drives
a wedge between existing residents and newcomers. African Americans are more likely to be
involved in religious, political, and social groups in their neighborhoods than Whites, which are
all factors that create social ties within neighborhoods (Barnes 2003).
1
Gender Influences
According to Lee and Campbell (1997), women are more active neighbors due to their
gender-role socialization, rather than the more of time available. Research also found that the
dependence on neighbors among housewives, but also exists among employed women whose
care responsibilities limit their off-job interaction (Lee and Campbell 1997).
Age Influences
While many younger adults leave their neighborhoods for work during most of the day,
many elderly residents stay home and spend time in their neighborhoods (Pillar 2015). Their
limited mobility around the neighborhood provides opportunities to make friends and discuss
neighborhood issues with elderly neighbors (Oh 2003). According to Cornwell and Waite (2009),
as people age, they experience physical and social losses and these social losses affect their
interactions within their environments. Similarly, Guest & Wierzbicki (1999) found that as
neighborhood residents reach very old age, they are less likely to form social ties with their
neighbors. They also found that the youngest and those without children have high absolute
neighborhood activity patterns and although this might seem counterintuitive, these types of
individuals also have unusually high levels of nonneighborhood ties (Guest & Wierzbicki 1999).
This could be possible because of how young and the childless generally have fewer family ties
and thus have the time and energy to socialize outside the home.
Political Influences
Research done by Leydon (2003), measured social capital. He found that individuals with
high levels of social capital tend to be involved politically, to volunteer in their communities, and
to get together more frequently with friends and neighbors (Leydon 2003). Leydon (2003) also
found that many Americans have no choice but to live in a modern, car-dependent suburb,
2
because not enough viable, affordable traditional neighborhoods exist; their options are biased
toward car-dependent suburban subdivisions, because such environments are what most
developers build.
argument is essentially cultural; the middle and upper classes primarily form bonds through
formal social organizations, while those in the working class have closer relationships with
family and informal groups. Demographics on neighborliness is highly related on social class.
According to research done by Guest, Cover, and Matsueda (2006), there has been an overall
decline in social ties in neighborhoods, but there is also a relative significant proportion that
interact frequently with their neighbors. Pillar (2015) conducted research that studied the social
interaction amongst neighbors within a two year period and found that 61% of respondents
reported spending a social evening with neighbors once a month or more in the first year, and in
Hypothesis
For this study, there are three hypothesis examined. First, people who are older will show
less social networking within their neighborhoods than those whom are younger individuals.
Also, men are more likely to be more socially isolated than women in the same neighborhood.
Another hypothesis is that individuals who are high political views will be more isolated than
those who do not view religion and political views significantly highly important.
3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Methods
For the purpose of this research, data will be collected from the 2014 General Social
Survey as provided from the Association of Religion Data Archives. The General Social Survey
is a sociological survey with 934 questions given to Americans in-person and is funded by the
National Science Foundation. In this study, the independent variables will be race, gender, age,
politics, and class with the dependent variable being neighborliness or social ties within a
neighborhood.
Dependent Variable
The dependent variable is going to be measured by using the question from the 2014 GSS
asking about the social connection between neighbors, specifically, Would you use this card and
tell me which answer comes closest to how often you do the following things: spend a social
evening with someone who lives in your neighborhood? (SOCOMMUN). The coding for this
variable is 1 equals almost every day, 2 equals once or twice a week, 3 equals several times a
month, 4 equals about once a month, 5 equals several times a year, 6 equals about once a year,
Independent Variables
characteristics of age, worship attendance, political ideology, race, region, and sex.
Age was asked with the question, Respondants age (I-AGE) with the coding of 1
equals 18 to 29, 2 equals 30 to 44, 3 equals 45 to 59, 4 equals 60 to 74, and 5 equals 75 or older.
Worship attendance was measured by the question, How often do you attend religious
services? (I-ATTEND). It has the coding of 1 equals less than once a year, 2 equals once a year,
4
3 equals several times a year, 4 equals once to three times a month, 5 equals nearly every week,
Political ideology was measured by the question, We hear a lot of talk these days about
liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on which the political
views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal (point 1) to extremely
conservative (point 7). Where would you place yourself on this scale? (I-POLITICS) with the
coding of 1 equals to extremely liberal or liberal, 2 equals slightly liberal, 3 equals moderate, 4
Race was measured by the question, What race do you consider yourself? (I-RACE)
with the coding of 1 equals White, 2 equals black, and 3 equals other.
Sex was measured by the question, Respondants sex (I-SEX) with the coding of 1
Income was measured by the question, In which of these groups did your total family
income, from all sources, fall last year before taxes, that is with the coding of 1 equals under
$1,000, 2 equals $1,000 to $2,999, 3 equals $3,000 to $3,999, 4 equals $4,000 to $4,999, 5
equals $5,000 to $5,999, 6 equals $6,000 to $6,999, 7 equals $7,000 to $7,999, 8 equals $8,000
5
And class was measured by the question, If you were asked to use one of four names for
your social class, which would you say you belong in: the lower class, the working class, the
middle class or the upper class (CLASS) with the coding of 1 equals lower class, 2 equals
Limitations
data from the GSS. The questions never define the term neighborhood, although conceptions of it
are typically limited to an area encompassing, at most, a few blocks around ones home (Lee and
Campbell 1997). Another limitation is that lack of adequate information on a given subject due to
variables because it is impossible to control all variables. For this research, there is only one
variable being used as the dependent study. With only one variable, it is impossible to capture
everything.
FINDINGS
Note: SD refers to standard deviation. Percentages reported only for nominal-level variables.
6
TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlation Coefficients for Independent Variables and Social Ties.
SOCOMMUN
AGE .024
CLASS -.075
INCOME06 .093
POLITICS .030
SEX .59
RACENEW .033
TABLE 3. Partial Correlation Coefficients Controlling for INCOME, CLASS, and RACENEW.
SOCOMMUN
SEX .063**
INCOME06 .023
AGE .042*
Table 1 displays the mean of the variables AGE, CLASS, INCOME06, and POLITICS.
The mean of the variable is the average answer given by respondents in relation to the answers
given on the survey by interpreting the coding for the question. The average AGE was 49.83
meaning that most of the respondents were between the age of 49 and 50 years of age. The
average CLASS was 2.39 meaning that most people who answered this question were of the
working class. The average for INCOME06 was 17.24 meaning that the majority of the
7
respondents have an income of $35,000 to $39,999. The POLITICS variable has a mean 3.07 that
indicates that most respondents stated that they would consider themselves as moderate on an
extremity scale of being extremely conservative to extremely liberal. The other variables listed in
the table have descriptive statistics given in the 2014 General Social Survey display of data.
Table 2 displays the bivariate correlation coefficients for the independent variables and
neighborly social ties. None of the independent variables displayed a statistically significant
relationship with the independent variable when running a bivariate correlation on the
coefficients. The variables AGE, INCOME06, POLITICS, and RACEnew, all displayed positive,
correlation of .033. The variable SEX displayed a positive, moderate correlation with a
correlation of .59. And lastly, the variable CLASS displayed a negative, weak correlation with a
correlation of -.075.
Table 3 displays the partial correlation coefficients when controlling for INCOME06,
CLASS, and RACEnew. These variables were controlled because income, class, and race will
not influence the statistical data. Several hypotheses state that people who are older will show
more social networking within their neighborhoods than those whom are younger individuals,
men are more likely to be more socially isolated than women in the same neighborhood, and
individuals who are high political views will be more isolated in neighborhoods than those who
do not view religion and political views significantly highly important. Because these hypotheses
may need further research to get defined data, SEX, POLITICS, and AGE are being correlated
8
with SOCOMMUN without further influence from INCOME06, CLASS, and RACEnew. SEX is
being correlated to display neighborly social ties based on whether someone is male or female.
The variable POLITICS is being correlated to indicate which political viewer is more likely to
have neighborly social ties. And lastly, the variable AGE is being correlated with SOCOMMUN
The results for SEX are .063** which displays a positive, weak correlation to
SOCOMMUN and was statistically significant at the .05 level. The results for POLITICS is .038
which displays a positive, weak correlation to SOCOMMUN and was not statistically significant
at the .05 level. And lastly, the results for AGE is .042*, which displays a positive, weak
DISCUSSION
The results within this study incorporate with the finding from the literature review. The
data in Table 2 reads the following: individuals who are between the ages of 18 to 29 are more
likely to have social ties than others, higher social classes were more likely to have social ties
than lower social classes, those with a lower income were more likely to carry on social ties in a
neighborhood, the less conservative an individual is the more likely they are to have social ties
within their neighborhood, females are more likely to have social ties within a neighborhood
than males, and that individuals who identify their race as White are less likely to have social ties
than those whom are black. The data in Table 3 displays that the variables SEX and AGE were
statistically significant, whereas the variable POLITICS was not statistically significant when
controlling for the variables INCOME06, CLASS, and RACEnew. Table 3 reads that females are
more likely to have neighborly social ties than males, individuals who are between the ages of 18
9
to 29 are more likely to have social ties than all others, and people who are more conservative
CONCLUSION
The findings of this study are consistent with those found in the literature review. By
understanding what factors influence social ties within neighborhoods, changes that affect social
ties becomes measurable. Your political ideology, age, and sex all influence whether an
10
REFERENCES
Cornwell, E., & Waite, L. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756979/
Guest, A. and Wierzbicki, S. (1999). Social ties at the neighbourhood level: two decades of GSS
evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35, pp. 92-111. Retreived from: http://0-
journals.sagepub.com.ucark.uca.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/10780879922184301
Hess, C., Brydolf-Horwitz, M., & Larimore S. (2016). Neighborhood change and neighboring
web.b.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=50c436f4-6d2c-
44fc-afd1-4523b999c25f%40sessionmgr120&vid=5&hid=116
Klinenberg, E. (2015). Alone in the city? An intellectual history of social isolation. Institute for
http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2002/IPR-WP-02-
15.pdf
Lancee, B. & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in dutch
neighbourhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37(4), p.
11
web.a.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=382ccc63-5069-
47a3-9318-a62d518b0cc1%40sessionmgr4008&vid=25&hid=4201
Lee, B. A., and K. E. Campbell. 1997. Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey
Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/
Oh, J. (2003). Assessing the Social Bonds of Elderly Neighbors: The Roles of Length of
web.a.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=50e8fac4-e838-
4805-908c-0f7478669982%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&hid=4201
Putman, R. (2012). Whats so darned special about church friends? Altruism, Morality, & Social
http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11105535
12