Abstract
Social isolation is a deprivation of social connectedness. It is a crucial aspect that continues to be named by people as a core impediment for achieving well-being and as a relevant factor for understanding poverty. However it is not routinely included in surveys that provide data on multidimensional poverty measurement. Although the challenge of measuring social connectedness is daunting, this paper argues that existing research in several fields provides solid ground for the construction of basic internationally comparable indicators that measure specific aspects of social isolation. In particular, this paper synthesises the relevant literature on the measurement of social isolation and related phenomena, and on the basis of this synthetic review, proposes a module of indicators to measure social connectedness that could be feasibly incorporated into an internationally comparable multi-topic household survey.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
These are only some examples of a number of initiatives exploring aspects of social connectedness. See, for example, the Benessere Equo e Sostenibile initiative in Italy (http://www.misuredelbenessere.it), the New Zealand Social Report (http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz), The Minnesota Project (Minnesota Department of Health 2010), the Working Group on Social Isolation of the Province of British Columbia in Canada (Keefe et al. 2006), and the work on social isolation by the New South Wales Department of Disability, Ageing and Home Care in Australia (Fine and Spencer 2009). In Italy, for example, people indicated, through participatory exercises, that good relationships with friends and relatives were as important as having an adequate income. Relationships were considered by respondents to be among the top contributors to life and well-being, ranking behind only good health, guaranteeing the economic and social future of children, and having decent satisfying work.
The subject of social isolation has been addressed by an array of literatures from different disciplines. This analysis is rooted in economic theory and research. The economic lens we draw upon has a number of limitations, and can be criticised for being overly reductionist, specifically through reducing the social, cultural and psychological complexity of social connections to their instrumental explanations. As far as possible, to avoid this reductionism, we have drawn upon rich analyses from social psychology, sociology, anthropology and philosophy. Yet the richness of the literature makes it impossible to review and address all, forcing us to overlook other strong theories. We are also approaching the subject with a very concrete objective (proposing indicators apt for large surveys) that forces us to leave behind solid yet unfeasible measurement instruments for this particular objective. We welcome any suggestion to enrich this selection.
Currently, much of the literature is based on the European, Australian, New Zealand, or North American contexts.
For a discussion regarding the emphasis on the instrumental value of relationships and the idea behind the term ‘capital’ in these theories, see Zavaleta et al. (2014).
Several countries have dedicated surveys on social capital developed for their own contexts, including the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Ireland, the Netherlands, and the United States. There are also important initiatives by the OECD and several national statistics offices advocating for the harmonisation of social capital indicators (see for example, Healy 2002). The study by Grootaert et al. (2004) is, to the knowledge of these authors, the largest study attempting to develop internationally comparable indicators on social capital. Its emphasis on developing countries—the questionnaire builds on studies carried in Bolivia, Burkina Faso, Ghana, Guatemala, Indonesia, Tanzania, and Uganda—and the objective of making these indicators usable for a multi-topic household survey makes this experience particularly relevant for this study. Unfortunately, the questionnaire has been only piloted in Albania and Nigeria and thus there is no evaluation of its relevance. For a discussion on practical guidelines for measuring social capital in low-income countries using the SC-IQ see Jones and Woolcock (2007).
The list of the suggested most essential questionnaire items is provided in Appendix 1 of Zavaleta et al. (2014).
See, for example, Adam and Roncevic (2003), Durlauf and Fafchamps (2004), Foxton and Jones (2011), Grootaert (1998), Lochner et al. (1999), Moore et al. (2011), OECD (2011), Putnam (2001), Stiglitz et al. (2009), and Stone (2001). The Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress, for example, recognises this problem and calls for more work on the development of solid indicators for measuring social connectedness. It provides, as reference, a list of questions used in the US The list of these suggested questionnaire items can be found in Appendix 2, Zavaleta et al. (2014).
The OECD distinguishes between headline indicators (most of which come from official statistics) and secondary indicators. The indicator on Social Network Support has been selected by the OECD to be its headline indicator for the ‘social connections’ dimension of well-being. Data for this indicator comes from the Gallup World Poll. See OECD (2011) for a discussion on this.
See Cotterell and Crothers (2011) for a discussion on the evolution of social indicators in New Zealand and the conception of this report.
See New Zealand Ministry of Social Development (2010) (http://socialreport.msd.govt.nz).
The indicators are: (1) telephone and Internet access in the home; (2) contact with family and friends; (3) contact between young people and their parents; (4) trust in others; (5) loneliness; and (6) voluntary work.
The actual question reads as following: ‘Some people say they feel isolated from the people around them while others say they don’t. They might feel isolated even though they see family or friends every day. In the last four weeks, how often have you felt isolated from others?’ The use of the specific term in questions enquiring about these types of states is often criticised. For example, discussing the use of the term ‘loneliness’ in questions attempting to assess this state, Rook (1988) argues that while the term is meaningful to many people, it is also a fuzzy concept with multiple meanings. This may result in a strong reporting error. Moreover, the attached stigma to feelings of loneliness may prevent some older people from reporting it (Rotenberg and MacKie 1999; Victor et al. 2000).
The researchers asked people, ‘From time to time, most people discuss important matters with other people. Looking back over the last six months, who are the people, other than people living in your household, with whom you discussed matters important to you?’ (Tigges et al. 1998, p. 58).
A discussion on the statistical quality of the indicators proposed by the OECD can be found in OECD (2011, p. 173).
The relevance of reciprocity within the social capital literature resides in the potential that giving and receiving may have on enhancing a person’s ability to gain access to power or resources, or to increase the level and efficiency of production. This is an instrumental value of personal exchanges yet quite limited for describing the quality of relational engagements. An alternative form of measuring the relevance of this exchange but with an emphasis on its intrinsic value is provided by psychological theories of mutuality, relationality, or interdependency, among others. Mutuality, for example, refers to ‘the bidirectional movement of feelings, thoughts, and activity between persons in relationships, but its common usage is circumscribed by notions of social exchange’ (Genero et al. 1992, p. 36; see the same authors for a measure proposal for perceived mutuality in close relationships).
Kawachi et al., for example, asked participants: ‘Would you say that most of the time people try to be helpful, or are they mostly looking out for themselves?’ (1997, p. 1492). In turn, Pollack and von dem Knesebeck (2004) asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement: ‘In my neighbourhood, most people are willing to help others’, while Lochner et al. (2003) asked participants to agree or disagree with the statement: ‘people around here are willing to help their neighbours’. Finally, Maximiano (2012) proposes ‘If someone does something that is beneficial to me, then I am prepared to return a favour, even when this was not agreed upon in advance’ and ‘If I do something that is beneficial for someone else, then I expect that person to return a favour.’
Examples of attempts to measure reciprocity directly can be found in Ziersch et al (2005) (‘Have you assisted neighbours and friends?; Have neighbours or friends assisted you?’) and Antonucci, Fuhrer and Jackson (1990) (Right now, would you say you provide more support advice and help to your (spouse, mother, father, child and friend) in your support network, is it about equal or does he or she provide more to you?’).
OPHI’s Missing Dimensions of Poverty Data explores indicators for five dimensions of life for which there is little or no effort to collect data on an internationally comparable scale and that have been widely named by people living under poverty as relevant to their experience. The dimensions explored are quality of work, empowerment, physical safety, psychological and subjective well-being, and social connectedness. For further details, see: http://www.ophi.org.uk/research/missing-dimensions/.
These include: (1) Life overall; (2) Food; (3) Housing; (4) Income; (5) Health; (6) Work; (7) Local security level; (8) Friends and Family; (9) Education; (10) Neighbourhood; (11) Ability to help others; (12) Well-being from spiritual, religious or philosophical beliefs.
See also Glaeser et al. (2000) for a discussion on the standard survey questions about trust.
In Self et al. (2012).
In OECD (2011).
In Dohmen et al. (2006).
In Stiglitz et al. (2009).
Note: This question without the suggested additions is found in OPHI’s Psychological and Subjective Well-being Module. If both modules are being tested at the same time, this question can be avoided. However, the question in that module needs to be complemented by the suggested additions.
See Samman (2007).
See Samman (2007).
In OECD (2011).
Grootaert et al. (2004).
idem.
References
Abbott, S., & Freeth, D. (2008). Social capital and health: Starting to make sense of the role of generalized trust and reciprocity. Journal of Health Psychology, 13, 874–883.
Acket, S., Borsenberger, M., Dickes, D., & Sarracino, F. (2011). Measuring and validating social cohesion: A bottom-up approach. In CEPS-INSTEAD Working Paper.
Adam, F., & Roncevic, B. (2003). Social capital: Recent debates and research trends. Social Science Information, 42(2), 155–183.
Antonucci, T. C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 519–530.
Brock, K. (1999). It’s not only wealth that matters: It’s peace of mind too. A review of participatory work on poverty and illbeing. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Cagney, K. A., Glass, T. A., Skarupski, K. A., Barnes, L. L., Schwartz, B. S., & Mendes de Leon, C. F. (2009). Neighborhood-level cohesion and disorder: Measurement and validation in two older adult urban populations. Journal of Gerontology, 64B(3), 415–424.
Campbell, K., & Barrett, L. (1992). Sources of personal neighbor networks: Social integration, need, or time? Social Forces, 70, 1077–1100.
Cattan, M., White, M., Bond, J., & Learmouth, A. (2005). Preventing social isolation and loneliness among older people: A systematic review of health promotion interventions. Ageing and Society, 25, 41–67.
Cotterell, G., & Crothers, C. (2011). Social indicators and social reporting in New Zealand, and the potential contribution of the Family Whanau and Wellbeing Project. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 37, 152–171.
Cummins, R. A. (1996). The domains of life satisfaction: An attempt to order chaos. Social Indicators Research, 38, 303–328.
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2006). A 6-item scale for overall, emotional, and social loneliness: Confirmatory tests on survey data. Research on Aging, 28(5), 582–598.
de Jong Gierveld, J., & Van Tilburg, T. (2010). The De Jong Gierveld short scales for emotional and social loneliness: Tested on data from seven countries in the UN Generations and Gender Surveys. European Journal of Ageing, 7(2), 121–130.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33(2), 313–327.
Dohmen, T., Falk, A., Huffman, D., & Sunde, U. (2006). Representative trust and reciprocity: Prevalence and determinants. Germany: Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
du Toit, A., Skuse, A., & Cousins, T. (2007). The political economy of social capital: Chronic poverty, remoteness and gender in the rural Eastern Cape. Social Identities, 13(4), 521–540.
Durlauf, S. N., & Fafchamps, M. (2004). Social capital. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Easterly, W., Ritzen, J., & Woolcock, M. (2006). Social cohesion, institutions and growth. Economic and Politics, 18(2), 103–120.
Fafchamps, M., & Shilpi, F. (2008). Isolation and subjective welfare: Evidence from South Asia. Policy Research. Washington DC: The World Bank.
Fine, M., & Spencer, R. (2009). Social isolation: Development of an assessment tool for HACC services. Centre for Research on Social Inclusion, New South Wales Department of Disability, Ageing and Home Care.
Fischer, C. (1982). To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Foxton, F., & Jones, R. (2011). Social capital indicators review. London: Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Genero, N., Miller, J. B., Surrey, J., & Baldwin, L. M. (1992). Measuring perceived mutuality in close relationships: Validation of the mutual psychological development questionnaire. Journal of Family Psychology, 6(1), 36–48.
Glaeser, E. L., Laibson, D. I., Scheinkman, J. A., & Soutter, C. L. (2000). Measuring trust. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115(3), 811–846.
Gonzalez de la Rocha, M. (2007). The construction of the myth of survival. Development and Change, 38(1), 45–66.
Gordon, D., Levitas, R., Pantazis, C., Patsios, D., Payne, S., Townsend, P., et al. (2000). Poverty and social exclusion in Britain. New York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
Gordon, D., Mack, J., Lansley, S., Main, G., Nandy, S., Patsios, D., et al. (2013). The impoverishment of the UK: PSE UK first results. Living standards. Bristol: The Poverty and Social Exclusion in the UK project.
Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M. S. (1982). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. In P. V. Marsden & N. Lin (Eds.), Social structure and network analysis (pp. 201–233). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Grootaert, C. (1998). Social capital: The missing link? Social Capital Initiative. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Grootaert, C., Narayan, D., Nyhan Jones, V., & Woolcock, M. (2004). Measuring social capital: An integrated questionnaire. Washington, DC: The World Bank.
Gundelach, B., & Traunmuller, R. (2013). Beyond generalised trust: Norms of reciprocity as an alternative form of social capital in an assimilationist integration regime. Political Studies,. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12064.
Harper, R., & Kelly, M. (2003). Measuring Social Capital in the United Kingdom. London: Office for National Statistics.
Hawkley, L. C., Browne, M. W., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). How can I connect with thee? Let me count the ways. Psychological Science, 16(10), 798–804.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2009). Loneliness. In H. R. S. Sprecher (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human relationships (pp. 985–990). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2010). Loneliness matters: A theoretical and empirical review of consequences and mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40, 218–227.
Healy, T. (2002). The measurement of social capital at the international level. International conference on the measurement of social capital. London: UK Office for National Statistics and the OECD.
Hooghe, M. (2007). Social capital and diversity: Generalized trust, social cohesion and regimes of diversity. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 709–732.
Hortulanus, R., Machielse, A., & Meeuwesen, L. (2006). Social isolation in modern society. London and New York: Routledge.
Hyyppä, M. T. (2010). Healthy ties: Social capital, population health and survival. New York: Springer.
Jones, V. N., & Woolcock, M. (2007). Using mixed methods to assess social capital in low income countries: A practical guide. Manchester: Brooks World Poverty Institute.
Kahneman, D., & Krueger, A. B. (2006). Developments in the measurement of subjective well-being. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 20, 3–24.
Kawachi, I., Kennedy, B. P., Lochner, K., & Prothrow-Stith, D. (1997). Social capital, income inequality, and mortality. American Journal of Public Health, 78(9), 1491–1498.
Keefe, J., Andrew, A., Fancey P., & Hallet, M. (2006). A profile of social isolation in Canada. Report submitted to the F/P/T Working Group on Social Isolation. Province of British Columbia and Mount Saint Vincent University.
Kim, E. S., Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2013). Perceived neighborhood social cohesion and stroke. Social Science and Medicine, 97, 49–55.
Klinenberg, E. (2001). Dying alone: The social production of urban isolation. Ethnography, 2, 501–531.
Krueger, A. B., Kahneman, D., Schkade, D., Schwarz, N., & Stone, A. (2009). National time accounting: The currency of life. In A. B. Kruger (Ed.), Measuring the subjective well-being of nations: National accounts of time use and well-being. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Leavy, J., & Howard, J. (2013). What matters most? Evidence from 84 participatory studies with those living with extreme poverty and marginalisation. London: Institute of Development Studies (IDS).
Lochner, K. A., Kawachi, I., Brennan, R. T., & Buka, S. L. (2003). Social capital and neighborhood mortality rates in Chicago. Social Science and Medicine, 56, 1797–1805.
Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its measurement. Health and Place, 5, 259–270.
Maximiano, S. (2012). Measuring reciprocity: Do survey and experimental data correlate? (Krannert School of Management Working Paper). West Lafayette: Krannert School of Management, Purdue University.
Maxwell, J. (1996). Social dimensions of economic growth. The Eric John Hanson Memorial Lecture Series. Department of Economics, University of Alberta.
McGee, R. (1998). Looking at poverty from different points of view: A Colombian case study (PhD. Thesis). University of Manchester.
MIND. (2004). Not alone? Isolation and mental distress. London: MIND.
Minnesota Department of Health. (2010). Social connectedness: Evaluating the healthy people 2020 framework. Minnesota Department of Health Community and Family Health Division, Office of Public Health Practice.
Moore, S., Bockenholt, U., Daniel, M., Frohlich, K., Kestens, Y., & Richard, L. (2011). Social capital and core network ties: A validation study of individual-level social capital measures and their association with extra- and intra-neighborhood ties, and self-rated health. Health and Place, 17(2), 536–544.
Narayan, D., Chambers, R., Shah, M. K., & Petesch, P. (2000). Voices of the poor: Crying out for change. New York: Oxford University Press for the World Bank.
New Zealand Ministry of Social Development. (2010). The social report 2010. New Zealand: The Ministry of Social Development.
OECD. (2011). How’s life? Measuring well-being. Paris: OECD.
Office for National Statistics. (2011). Measuring national well-being, measuring what matters: National statistician’s reflections on the national debate on measuring national well-being. London: Office for National Statistics (ONS).
Onyx, J., & Bullen, P. (2000). Measuring social capital in five communities. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 36, 23–42.
Pinquart, M., & Sörensen, S. (2001). Influences on loneliness in older adults: A meta-analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 23, 245–266.
Pollack, C. E., & von dem Knesebeck, O. (2004). Social capital and health among the aged: Comparisons between the United States and Germany. Health and Place, 10, 383–391.
Putnam, R. D. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Isuma: Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41–51.
Quane, J. M., & Wilson, W. J. (2012). Critical commentary. Making the connection between the socialisation and the social isolation of the inner-city poor. Urban Studies, 49, 1–11.
Robinson, D., & Williams, T. (2001). Social capital and voluntary activity: giving and sharing in Maori and non-Maori society. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 17, 52–71.
Rook, K. S. (1988). Toward a more differentiated view of loneliness. In S. W. Duck (Ed.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, Research, Interventions (pp. 571–589). Oxford: Wiley.
Rotenberg, K. J., & MacKie, J. (1999). Stigmatization of social and intimacy loneliness. Psychological Reports, 84, 147–148.
Russell, D. W. (1982). The measurement of loneliness. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman (Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of current theory, research and therapy (pp. 81–104). New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Russell, D. W. (1996). UCLA loneliness scale (version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment, 66(1), 20–40.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2001). On happiness and human potentials: A review of research on hedonic and eudaimonic well-being. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 141–166.
Samman, E. (2007). Psychological and subjective wellbeing: A proposal for internationally comparable indicators. Oxford Development Studies, 35(4), 459–486.
Savikko, N., Routasalo, P., Tilvis, R. S., Strandberg, T. E., & Pitkälä, K. H. (2005). Predictors and subjective causes of loneliness in an aged population. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 41(3), 223–233.
Self, A., Thomas, J., & Randall, C. (2012). Measuring national well-being-our relationships. London: Office for National Statistics UK.
Stafford, M., Bartley, M., Sacker, A., & Marmot, M. (2003). Measuring the social environment: Social cohesion and material deprivation in English and Scottish neighbourhoods. Environment and Planning, 35, 1459–1475.
Stewart, M. J., Makwarimba, E., Reutter, L. I., Veenstra, G., Raphael, D., & Love, R. (2009). Poverty, sense of belonging and experiences of social isolation. Journal of Poverty, 13, 173–195.
Stiglitz, J.E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris.
Stone, W. (2001). Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life Melbourne (Research Paper No. 24). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Suedfeld, P. (1974). Social isolation: A case for interdisciplinary research. The Canadian Psychologist, 15(1), 1–15.
Thomas, B. K., Muradian, R., de Groot, G., & de Ruijter, A. (2010). Resilient and resourceful? A case study on how the poor cope in Kerala, India. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 45(1), 29–45.
Tigges, L. M., Browne, I., & Green, G. P. (1998). Social isolation of the urban poor: race, class, and neighborhood effects on social resources. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(1), 53–77.
Van Tilburg, T., Van Sonderen, E., & Ormel, J. (1991). The measurement of reciprocity in ego-centered networks of personal relationships: A comparison of various indices. Social Psychology Quarterly, 54(1), 54–66.
Victor, C., Scambler, S., Bond, J., & Bowling, A. (2000). Being alone in later life: Loneliness, social isolation and living alone. Reviews in Clinical Gerontology, 10(4), 407.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Zavaleta, D., Samuel, K., & Mills, C. (2014). Social isolation: A conceptual and measurement proposal. OPHI Working Papers 67.
Ziersch, A. M., Baum, F. E., MacDougall, C., & Putland, C. (2005). Neighbourhood life and social capital: The implications for health. Social Science and Medicine, 60, 71–86.
Acknowledgments
We are enormously grateful to Sabina Alkire for comments on earlier drafts and for continued support. We are also extremely thankful to our anonymous reviewer for the rich comments and incredible encouragement. We would also like to thank the Synergos Institute; Synergos South Africa; Nelson Mandela’s Children’s Fund (NMCF) (South Africa); the Leadership and Innovation Network For Collaboration In The Children’s Sector (LINC); Fundação para o Desenvolvimento da Comunidade (Mozambique); Recontro (Mozambique); Assembly of First Nations (Canada); Gathering Voices Society (Canada); and Special Olympics International for support during fieldwork. We would also particularly like to thank the National Association of Child and Youth Care Worker’s (NACCW) Isibindi project, and its teams in Soweto and Grabouw; the Gogo’s at the Othandweni Center; and Julio Mutemba from REPSSI, Mozambique. All errors remain ours.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zavaleta, D., Samuel, K. & Mills, C.T. Measures of Social Isolation. Soc Indic Res 131, 367–391 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1252-2
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-016-1252-2
Keywords
- Social indicators
- Social connectedness
- Social isolation
- Relational poverty
- Multidimensional poverty
- Personal relations