A Survey on Social Capital in the Students of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences in 2016

Abstract

1. Background

The term “social capital” was used for the first time by Hanifan in 1916 (1). The concept of this idiom was refined by sociologists, psychologists, economists, and social theorists during a century (2, 3). This was done to develop an understanding of living in social construct (4). Social capital is defined as a series of norms and networks leading to the development of public activities based on social science principles. In particular, social capital is developed by social relations and resource mobilization, thereby encouraging poor people to support the social norms and helps decrease their vulnerability. For example, the most significant social capital at the workplace depends on how poor people interact socially in the absence of conventional mechanisms including insurance and financial resources; thus, it is considered as an essential factor to protect them against the hazards and their own vulnerability (5).

Social capital provides a suitable framework to coordinate between social relations, social welfare, access to services, health protection, self-case, and also the quality of life. These relations and networks are considered as mediators for social capital in order to gather improved resources and relevant information (3).

Despite the importance of social capital (2, 6, 7) and its predictable role in health and welfare of people in rich and developed societies, few studies have been conducted in developing countries (6). Alternatively, the association of social capital with health is confirmed by different studies, conducted at different time and locations (6, 8), in sociology, economics, politics, public health (6), computer sciences (9), management, and leadership (10). Various investigations have supported the role of social capital as an important health determinant (8, 11-13); however, there is no concise information available (1, 8). Nevertheless, social capital is defined as a series of norm, networks, trust, and social participation, which may help to facilitate and promote the activities to conduct effective measures in a society (11). Simultaneously, there is a profound connection between personal and social levels of social capital and good health, trust, and social participation. Furthermore, similar relation is observed between the dimensions of social capital and health (12, 14-16). Coleman studied social capital among high school students; they concluded that social capital encouraged higher studies in students up to graduate level, rather than quitting education. Social capital reduced the number of students being fired from high school, thereby having a positive impact on the families, society, and adult communities. In particular, the lack of social capital in high school students leads them to quit education before graduating (17). A large number of studies have emphasized on the importance of considering social capital and also its development among students in schools and universities all over the world (5, 17-19).

Few investigations conducted in Iran, considering the effect of social capital on voluntary behaviors and behavioral elements among university students, reveal the social capital traits among young people and students, thereby helping to differentiate the role of social capital in few cases (20-23) considering its importance on health of people (1, 6, 8, 11-13). The high number of young people with academic field and disregarding the significance of this issue in the mentioned people and also the necessity of educating young people as the influencing factors in future, it is necessary to study the range of social capital among students. Alternatively, developing social capital among students helps them develop their own society. Moreover, awareness of their social capital and its influencing factors can be effective in social and cultural planning. Therefore, this study was conducted to investigate the impact of social capital among students of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences.

2. Methods

This cross-sectional study is a descriptive analytical study, conducted in Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences, involving students of this university as participants. The students were selected through stratification method and were screened accordingly. There was a list consisted of all students in every school among which the cases were ordered based on simple randomization and independently. Then, the final cases were recognized. The selected students were informed regarding the project goals, its process, data confidentiality, and also their voluntary participation. In order to achieve the study goals, Bullent’s Social Capital Standard questionnaire, including 36 questions and 8 dimensions or sections, was used. These dimensions included participation in local communities. In social activities, security and trust, the communication with neighbors, the communication with family and friends, the tolerance power of differences, life value, work, communication and two other questions which were separated individually due to being contained in more than one dimension. This questionnaire was translated by Moradian and its validity was measured by Cronbach’s alpha (0.82) (13).

In total, there were 1479 students in this university, and the sample size was measured by Cochran’s formula:

3. Results

Considering the descriptive quantitative data, the results showed that 339 students of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences were studied. The results related to age, as the quantitative index, revealed that the mean age of the studied cases was 21.2 years (average down to bottom). The standard deviation demonstrated that the average distribution of age was 3.56 from the mean. The results of participation in local societies, as a quantitative index, showed 54.89 mean (average up to high). The standard deviation demonstrated that the average distribution of the mentioned index was 14.43 from the mean. The mean (average up to high) and standard deviation of average distribution of pioneership in social activities were 61.85 and 9.38, respectively. The mentioned mean values for security and trust dimension were, in turn, 59.64 and 12.4, respectively. The mean and standard deviation of average distribution of communication to neighbors, communication with family and friends, tolerance power of differences, life value, and work communication were 62.41 and 12.7, 67.13 and 13.52 respectively. It should be noted that all the mean amounts in the last five indices were considered average up to high levels. The results showed that two mentioned amounts for social capital were 60.27 (average up to high) and 6.18.

Table 1. Demographic Data

Variables	Total (N = 339)
Agea	21.20 ± 3.56
Genderb
Male	112 (33)
Female	227 (67)

^aValues are expressed as Mean ± SD.
^bValues are expressed as No. (%).

It should be noted that all the above indices were quantitative.

– Pearson coefficient was used to measure the relation between age and social capital as the level for age and social capital seemed to be different. The results obtained did not reveal any significant association between the dimensions for age and social capital.

– T independent test was used to investigate the relation between gender and social capital, which showed that the mean values of social capital, in both groups, were significant in males and females.

– T independent test was used to study the association between gender and social capital dimensions. The results obtained revealed that the mean values of social capital dimensions including participation in local communities, work, communication, and life value had no significant relation with the gender of participants; however, there was significant relation between the social capital and pioneership of social activities, security and trust feeling, communication with friends and neighbors, and tolerance power of differences.

Table 2. The Mean Scores of Social Capital Dimensions and Their Relation with Gender

Variables Group Mean ?	SD Statistical Test and P Value
Local participation in communities Male 56.79 ?	14.57 P = 0.101, t = 1.643, df = 337
Female 53.96 ?	15.05
Pioneership in social activities Male 63.30 ?	8.88 P = 0.037, t = 2.089, df = 337
Female 61.10 ?	9.55
The feeling of security and trust Male 64.64 ?	13.06 P = 0.000, t = 5.424, df = 337
Female 57.18 ?	11.30
Communication with neighbors Male 63.83 ?	12.53 P = 0. 149, t = 1.448, df = 337
Female 61.71 ?	12.75
Communication with family and friends Male 69.56 ?	16.84 P = 0. 036, t = 2.111, df = 337
Female 65.93 ?	13.87
The tolerance of power differences Male 58.25 ?	17.07 P = 0. 027, t = 2.215, df = 337
Female 54.07 ?	15.99
The life value Male 57.03 ?	16.59 P = 0. 459, T = 0.742, df = 337
Female 55.61 ?	16.46
Working communications Male 60.22 ?	13.19 P = 0. 979, t = −0.026, df = 337
Female 60.26 ?	13.71
Social capital Male 62.14 ?	8.20 P = 0. 003, t = 2.995, df = 337
Female 59.34 ?	8.03

Table 3. The Mean of Social Capital Dimensions According to the Residence Place

Variables Group N Mean ?	SD Statistical Test and P Value
Local participation in communities Dormitory 239 55.26 ?	15.47 P = 0.870, F = 0.36, Df = 5
Personal home 29 52.21 ?	12.05
Relatives’ home 66 54.38 ?	14.44
Ones’ rent house 1 60.71 ?	16.44
Rent house with friends 3 58.33 ?	14.43
1 64.28 ?	.
Pioneership in social activities Dormitory 239 61.96 ?	8.94 P = 0.414, F = 1, Df = 5
Personal home 29 58.99 ?	10.12
Relatives’ home 66 62.60 ?	10.63
Ones’ rent house 1 71.42 ?	.
Rent house with friends 3 63.09 ?	5.45
1 53.57 ?	.
The feeling of security and trust Dormitory 239 59.66 ?	12.00 P = 0.294, F = 1.23, Df = 5
Personal home 29 58.62 ?	10.16
parent home 66 59.16 ?	14.42
Relatives’ home 1 60.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 76.66 ?	12.58
Rent house with friends 1 65.00 ?	.
Communication with neighbors Dormitory 239 62.6360 ?	12.30 P = 0.212, F = 1.43, Df = 5
Personal home 29 58.96 ?	11.05
parent home 66 62.27 ?	14.54
Relatives’ home 1 80.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 70.00 ?	10.00
Rent house with friends 1 80.00 ?	.
Communication with family and friends Dormitory 239 66.98 ?	15.16 P = 0.996, F = 0.07, Df = 5
Personal home 29 67.81 ?	14.72
parent home 66 67.29 ?	14.71
Relatives’ home 1 75.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 66.66 ?	22.04
Rent house with friends 1 66.66 ?	.
The tolerance of power differences Dormitory 239 54.91 ?	16.54 P = 0.861, F = 0.38, Df = 5
Personal home 29 54.74 ?	14.71
parent home 66 57.76 ?	17.371
Relatives’ home 1 50.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 54.16 ?	7.216
Rent house with friends 1 62.50 ?	.
The life value Dormitory 239 55.02 ?	16.27 P = 0.155, F = 1.61, Df = 5
Personal home 29 58.62 ?	16.40
parent home 66 59.09 ?	17.06
Relatives’ home 1 50.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 62.50 ?	12.500
Rent house with friends 1 25.00?	.
Working communications Dormitory 239 59.66 ?	13.92 P = 0.261, F = 1.30, Df = 5
Personal home 29 57.41 ?	10.48
parent home 66 63.03 ?	13.18
Relatives’ home 1 75.00 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 66.66 ?	7.63
Rent house with friends 1 65.00 ?	.
Social capital Dormitory 239 60.22 ?	8.03 P = 0.852, F = 0.75, Df = 5
Personal home 29 58.57 ?	6.74
parent home 66 60.78 ?	9.29
Relatives’, home 1 67.36 ?	.
Ones’ rent house 3 65.97 ?	7.82
Rent house with friends 1 62.50 ?	.

Table 4. The Mean of Social Capital Dimensions According to the Occupation

Variables Group N Mean ?	SD Statistical Test and P value
Local participation in communities Clerk 31 54.83 ?	16.58 P = 0.298, F = 1.23, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 63.31 ?	18.90
Housewife 7 56.12 ?	16.06
Jobless 290 54.55 ?	14.55
Pioneership in social activities Clerk 31 61.17 ?	10.62 P = 0.276, F = 1.29, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 63.96 ?	9.23
Housewife 7 55.61 ?	6.79
Jobless 290 61.99 ?	9.28
The feeling of security and trust Clerk 31 61.93 ?	12.62 P = 0.638, F = 0.56, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 58.18 ?	18.74
Housewife 7 56.42 ?	8.52
Jobless 290 59.53 ?	12.19
Communication with neighbors Clerk 31 63.38 ?	14.45 P = 0.639, F = 0.56, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 64.54 ?	15.07
Housewife 7 57.14 ?	14.39
Jobless 290 62.36 ?	12.40
Communication with family and friends Clerk 31 70.69 ?	17.19 P = 0.380, F = 1.02, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 69.69 ?	19.46
Housewife 7 71.42 ?	4.45
Jobless 290 66.55 ?	14.70
The tolerance of power differences Clerk 31 55.24?	16.70 P = 0.235, F = 1.42, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 62.50?	13.69
Housewife 7 64.28?	13.36
Jobless 290 55.00?	16.53
The life value Clerk 31 57.25?	16.06 P = 0.186, F = 1.61, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 57.95?	16.07
Housewife 7 42.85?	14.17
Jobless 290 56.20?	16.54
Working communications Clerk 31 70.69 ?	17.19 P = 0.789, F = 0.35, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 69.69 ?	19.46
Housewife 7 71.42 ?	4.45
Jobless 290 66.55 ?	14.70
Social capital Clerk 31 61.08 ?	9.07 P = 0.638, F = 0.56, Df = 3
Businessmen 11 62.37 ?	12.12
Housewife 7 57.83 ?	6.32
Jobless 290 60.16 ?	7.96

4. Discussion
To the best of our knowledge, in addition to economic and human capitals, social capital can be considered as a suitable context for using human and physical capital, and may also be used as a pathway to reach the higher society. Various groups, organizations, and societies have been able to succeed without any economical capital; however, they depend on human and social capitals.

Nevertheless, no human complex can carry out anything for improving the society without finding the social capital (1, 3, 6, 16-19, 24) .This study was conducted to find the social capital among the students of Sabzevar University of Medical Sciences. Our findings showed that no significant relation was observed between the age and dimensions of social capital.

These results differed from the study of Moradian et al. (13). Alternatively, there was a significant relation between gender and social capital dimensions in the present study, which is in correlation with the results of the two aforementioned studies (13, 25). Pooley et al. (2005) investigated that gender and academic level are the predictors of social capital; their results correlated with our study (1).

Moradian et al. (2011) investigated a cross-sectional study on social capital in Tehran University of Medical Sciences. They found that the lower and higher mean values of social capital dimensions were related to participation in local communities and friends and family dimensions, respectively. These results were similar to the results obtained in the present study (13).

In the present study, the least and most scores of social capital were found in the tolerance power of difference and communication with friends and family, respectively. The score of females was more than males in both aforementioned dimensions. This shows the importance of social capital in family; similar results were found in Kampopion’s study as well (26). Alternatively, the family plays an important role in enhancing the social capital in adolescents and young people by inducing emotional support. In particular, their family makes them ready to participate in social activities successfully during their adulthood (27, 28).

In this project, the results of social capital dimensions could not be generalized based on the occupation of students as most of the students from the university did not work. This could be one of the limitations of our investigation.

Based on the results of our studies, loneliness feeling is often more prevalent among young people than older individuals. This affects their trust and leads to reduced social capital in such people. Alternatively, certain investigations show that old people often suffer from loneliness; hence, a single pattern cannot be determined for loneliness and social capital based on the age factor. The aforementioned study correlates with the present study stating that no significant relation exists between age and social capital (29, 30).

Addis et al. studied the relation between gender and social capital. They showed that the process of increase and decrease in social capacity was different in men and women. Their findings also demonstrated that social capital increased after high school, in particular, in men above 18 years. Its value was highest between 35 and 45 years of age, which further decreased with increasing age. In the present study, the social capital of men was 6414 in comparison with women (59, 34), in a population with mean age of 21.2 (3.56); this difference was not remarkable. Addis et al. found that the value of social capital was approximately the same in students aged 18 years and a little older (after high school); however, the difference increased with increase in age. These results match the present study’s results (4). The present study concluded that no significant relation was observed between age and social capital dimensions; however, there was a significant relation between gender and social capital and also between gender and social capital dimensions.

References

1. Pooley JA, Cohen L, Pike LT. Can sense of community inform social capital? Soc Sci J. 2005; 42(1): 71-9[DOI]
2. Woolcock M. Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theor Soc. 1998; 27(2): 151-208[DOI]
3. Lewis JM, DiGiacomo M, Luckett T, Davidson PM, Currow DC. A social capital framework for palliative care: supporting health and well-being for people with life-limiting illness and their carers through social relations and networks. J Pain Symptom Manage. 2013; 45(1): 92-103[DOI][PubMed]
4. Gender Gaps in Social Capital: A theoretical interpretation of the Italian evidence. Second European Conference on Social Networks.
5. Woolcock M, Narayan D. Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and policy. World Bank Res Obs. 2000; 15(2): 225-49[DOI]
6. Musalia J. Social capital and health in Kenya: A multilevel analysis. Soc Sci Med. 2016; 167: 11-9[DOI][PubMed]
7. Nakagawa Y, Shaw R. Social capital: A missing link to disaster recovery. Int J Mass Emerg Disasters. 2004; 22(1): 5-34
8. Batra M. Social capital and oral health. J Clin Diagn Res. 2014; 8(9)[DOI]
9. Yang X, Li G. Factors influencing the popularity of customer-generated content in a company-hosted online co-creation community: A social capital perspective. Comput Human Behav. 2016; 64: 760-8[DOI]
10. Akram T, Lei S, Hussain ST, Haider MJ, Akram MW. Does relational leadership generate organizational social capital? A case of exploring the effect of relational leadership on organizational social capital in China. Fut Bus J. 2016; 2(2): 116-26[DOI]
11. Murayama H, Fujiwara Y, Kawachi I. Social capital and health: a review of prospective multilevel studies. J Epidemiol. 2012; 22(3): 179-87[DOI][PubMed]
12. Nichols Dauner K, Wilmot NA, Schultz JF. Investigating the temporal relationship between individual-level social capital and health in fragile families. BMC Public Health. 2015; 15: 1130[DOI][PubMed]
13. Moradian Sorkhkalaee M. Social capital among medical Students of Tehran University of Medical Sciences in 2011 [In Persion]. Razi J Med Sci. 2012; 19(102): 30-7
14. Kawachi I, Kim D, Coutts A, Subramanian SV. Commentary: Reconciling the three accounts of social capital. Int J Epidemiol. 2004; 33(4): 682-90[DOI][PubMed]
15. Islam MK, Merlo J, Kawachi I, Lindstrom M, Gerdtham UG. Social capital and health: does egalitarianism matter? A literature review. Int J Equity Health. 2006; 5: 3[DOI][PubMed]
16. Gilbert KL, Quinn SC, Goodman RM, Butler J, Wallace J. A meta-analysis of social capital and health: a case for needed research. J Health Psychol. 2013; 18(11): 1385-99[DOI][PubMed]
17. Coleman JS. Social capital in the creation of human capital. Am J Sociol. 1988; 94: 95-120[DOI]
18. Vaughan S, Sanders T, Crossley N, O’Neill P, Wass V. Bridging the gap: the roles of social capital and ethnicity in medical student achievement. Med Educ. 2015; 49(1): 114-23[DOI][PubMed]
19. Putnam RD. Bowling alone: America’s declining social capital. J Democr. 1995; 6(1): 65-78[DOI]
20. Mazlom Khorasani M, Asgharpour A. Measure social capital, Mashhad University of Medical Sciences in the academic year 2004-2005 and its related factors [In Persian]. J Soc Sci Hum Fac. 2005; : 193-215
21. Gharibi H, Gholizade Z, Gharibi J. Predicting social capital of students based on background variables [In Persian]. EARQ. 2010; 2(2): 135-54
22. Roshanfekr P, Zokaei MS. Youth, social capital and voluntary behaviors [In Persian]. Acad J Soc Welf. 2006; 4(23): 146-13
23. Shiani M, Mosavi MT, Madani-Ghahghrkhi S. Social capital of young people in Iran [In Persian]. Iranian J Soc. 2009; 1(3): 57-84
24. Klevan S, Weinberg SL, Middleton JA. Why the boys are missing: Using social capital to explain gender differences in college enrollment for public high school students. Res High Educ. 2015; 57(2): 223-57[DOI]
25. Wuthnow R. Religious involvement and status-bridging social capital. J Sci Stud Relig. 2002; 41(4): 669-84[DOI]
26. Campopiano G, Minola T, Sainaghi R. Students climbing the entrepreneurial ladder. Int J of Contemp Hos Manage. 2016; 28(6): 1115-36[DOI]
27. Vorhies V, Davis KE, Frounfelker RL, Kaiser SM. Applying social and cultural capital frameworks: understanding employment perspectives of transition age youth with serious mental health conditions. J Behav Health Serv Res. 2012; 39(3): 257-70[DOI][PubMed]
28. Hidarnia A. Effectiveness of educational intervention based Affective Beliefs in prevention Paan consumption among adolescents in Chabahar. Proceedings in ARSA-Advanced Research in Scientific Areas.
29. Nyqvist F, Victor CR, Forsman AK, Cattan M. The association between social capital and loneliness in different age groups: a population-based study in Western Finland. BMC Public Health. 2016; 16: 542[DOI][PubMed]
30. Lauder W, Mummery K, Sharkey S. Social capital, age and religiosity in people who are lonely. J Clin Nurs. 2006; 15(3): 334-40[DOI][PubMed]