Validation of the Factorial Structure of Social Capital in Youth Involved in Prosocial and Political Organizations

Abstract

Social capital (SC) has been described as the “glue” that facilitates close social relationships among individuals, groups, and communities. However, few studies have empirically tested the structure of this concept. We report two studies that advance and test a model of SC in youth involved in social organizations. A theory-guided multidimensional representation of SC comprising six dimensions–social trust, interpersonal trust, participation processes, team work, political efficacy, and peer solidarity–was tested in a sample of 377 Chilean youth. Participants (51% males, M age = 21 years) were mostly students (90%) drawn from 41 youth organizations that pursued either prosocial or political goals. Findings from confirmatory factor analysis supported a four-factor instead of the original six-factor model. This structure was confirmed in an independent sample of 150 participants of social and political organizations. The four-factor second-order model included interpersonal trust, participation processes, team work, and peer solidarity as first-order factors.

Keywords

social capital youth organizations civic commitment

The notion of social capital (SC) gained visibility in discussions about strengthening the civil society (Putnam, 1993), the consolidation of democratic systems, and human development (Coleman, 1988; Fukuyama, 1996; Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo, 2000). Descriptively, SC is signaled as the “glue” that facilitates close and distant social relationships among individuals, families, groups, and communities, including participation in formal and informal organizations (Stolle & Hooghe, 2004).

Findings from several studies indicate that SC can be fostered within heterogeneous contexts, with multiple beneficial effects for the individuals or groups involved (Duke, Skay, Pettingell, & Borowsky, 2009; Flanagan, Kim, Collura, & Kopish, 2014), such as strengthening commitment in the transition to adulthood and overall youth development (Emery, 2013). However, imprecise conceptual definitions and poor empirical testing of the construct have prevented the advancement of SC research. Aiming to refine the concept of SC and its empirical correlates, this study advances a model for conceptualizing and measuring SC in participants of youth organizations.

The Concept of Social Capital

Bourdieu (1986) distinguishes social, economic, and cultural capital and defines SC as the aggregate of the actual or potential resources which are linked to possession of a durable network of more or less institutionalized relationships of mutual acquaintance and recognition (p. 21). Central to this notion is the idea that members of a group collectively own resources (i.e., capital) that back up or credit each of them. In their definition of SC, Bourdieu (1986) and Putnam (1993) both highlight the web of cooperative relationships social networks between citizens that facilitates the resolution of collective problems, and stress its role in brokering social conflict and power relations within societies.

SC is an aggregated concept rooted in individual behavior, attitudes, and dispositions. Because of its discursive and abstract definition, the operationalization of SC has been diverse across disciplines (i.e., political science, sociology, anthropology, human development). A systematic review of the literature also suggests that the theoretical and empirical foundations of social capital are weak, with gaps in the evaluation of SC at different stages of life. Although some empirical studies have attempted to delineate the notion of SC, they have not tested component dimensions empirically (Bassani, 2007; Stone, 2001), have used unidimensional indicators (Instituto Nacional de la Juventud [INJUV], 2006, 2009), or have examined benefits of SC without evidence of construct validity (Bassani, 2007; Stolle & Hooghe, 2004). Consequently, there is a need to refine the conceptualization of SC, and to empirically examine this construct in different age groups.

A Conceptual Frame for the Study of Social Capital

Empirical studies suggest that social capital builds in enduring social relationships (Bassani, 2007; Harpham, 2005; Jones & Perkins, 2006); cooperative encounters sustained over time build trust (Brehm & Rahn, 1997). A basic assumption of this approach is that, at the microsocial level, positive interactions with diverse and heterogeneous people (i.e., age, religion, ethnicity, culture) foster tolerance, general trust, and norms of reciprocity (Stolle & Hooghe, 2004). Because SC is based on social interaction that evolves as reciprocal relations among individuals (Brehm & Rahn, 1997), it should be studied paying close attention to the social contexts in which youth interact regularly. Building on Bourdieu (1986), membership in youth or community organizations provides access to structural resources, such as networks of social relationships, and cognitive resources such as reciprocity and trust. In these organizations, young people can gain access to resources through their interactions and social exchanges with peers and adults, strengthening the social capital of their members (Christens & Dolan, 2010; Jarret, Sullivan, & Watkins, 2005). Two findings suggest the importance of social participation as an indicator of social capital (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004). First, social networks constitute a source of future affiliations in adulthood. Second, associative participation in youth fosters civic attitudes as personal attributes that carry on into adulthood (Stolle & Hooghe, 2004).

Several studies highlight the structure of social relationships, such as the degree of people’s knowledge of each other and the flow of goods and services within the network, as a central component of SC. In fact, early studies explored affiliation to formal and informal organizations as an indicator of social capital (Bassani, 2007; Dávila & Honores, 2003; Harpham, 2005; Morrow, 1999; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Stone, 2001).

The norms of reciprocity and trust that operate within social relationships (i.e., content of social networks; Flanagan, Gill, & Gallay, 2005; Harpham, 2005; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Stone, 2001; Tennent, Farrell, & Tayler, n.d.) have also been studied as dimensions of SC. For example, Morrow (1999) proposed embeddedness in social networks and participation in organizations as structural indicators of SC, along with cognitive indicators such as social support and sense of community, all of which were assumed to reflect the particularities of SC in children and youth. However, Harpham, Grant, and Thomas (2002) recommend differentiating between structural and cognitive social capital as the former reflects the connectedness of individuals within a given group (e.g., organizations, networks), whereas the latter concerns feelings such as sense of community. Thus, to adequately measure SC, it is necessary to include both types of indicators.

Evidence of Outcomes and Benefits of SC for Youth

Few studies have examined SC in children or young people (Bassani, 2007; Billet, 2012; Morrow, 1999; Ryan & Junker, 2017; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004), let alone in subgroups such as youth participating in organizations (Christens & Dolan, 2010). Schaefer-McDaniel (2004) stresses the importance of attaining a conceptual synthesis and specificity in the literature of SC in children and youth, as, often times, studies rely on parents’ or teachers’ reports as proxies for children’s responses.

Previous studies in young people report a positive relationship between SC assets exchanged or transferred in close and distant networks, as well as between peers and beneficial outcomes of youth (Bassani, 2007; Cameron Kelly, 2009; Christens & Dolan, 2010; Jarret et al., 2005) such as availability of social support (Dávila & Honores, 2003), development of social skills (Stanton-Salazar, 2010), proactivity (Tennent et al., n.d.), well-being (Bassani, 2007), and civic commitment (Duke et al., 2009). Although their findings provide evidence of associations between assumed indicators of SC and outcome variables, most of these studies (Cameron Kelly, 2009; Harpham, 2005; Leonard, 2008; Stone, 2001) lack a conceptual model or a specific theoretical definition of SC as a base to conclude about the core dimensions of the construct.

Similarly, other studies define SC in too general terms an asset that entails benefits for young people in particular, for the underprivileged (e.g., access to social resources for the racially disadvantaged; Cameron Kelly, 2009), and empowerment for the less wealthy (Stanton-Salazar, 2010). Finally, focusing on the outcomes of interventions, other studies have measured SC as an indicator of the effectiveness of after-school (Kahne et al., 2001), community development, social change (Christens & Dolan, 2010), and well-being programs (Bassani, 2007).

In sum, though a number of studies (Bassani, 2007; Billet, 2012; Cameron Kelly, 2009; Duke et al., 2009; Flanagan et al., 2014; Harpham, 2005; Leonard, 2008) inform about the benefits of SC in youth, their findings are not driven by theory or based on a clear operationalization of the concept. These studies report higher levels of trust and general reciprocity in participants who would normally have a higher likelihood of becoming involved in voluntary associations.

Findings from previous studies (Bassani, 2007; Billet, 2012; Flanagan & Gallay, 2008; Harpham, 2005; Morrow, 1999; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004; Stolle & Hooghe, 2004; Tennent et al., n.d.) that assessed SC in children and youth provide empirical support for sociability, social networks, social support, trust, reciprocity, and civic commitment as constitutive components of SC (Morrow, 1999). In a similar line, Schaefer-McDaniel (2004) describes sociability, trust, reciprocity, and a sense of belonging as indicators of social capital in young people.

The Present Study

Studies reviewed earlier confirm the multidimensional nature of social capital. From a contextual developmental perspective (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004), organizations are settings that facilitate processes of social interaction (e.g., settings that link individuals together) and bonds; and, behavioral exchanges among people are contexts that foster SC (Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004). Through the network of relationships established with peers, contexts of organized participation reinforce shared values and social norms, and shape the personal and social identity of young people (Martínez, Peñaloza, & Valenzuela, 2012). However, no in-depth examination of social capital within youth involved in organizations is currently available in the literature.

Based on evidence from previous studies, we advance a six-factor model of SC. The indicators of this multidimensional model included subjective components of SC relevant for youth participating in organizations, namely, peer social support (Arriagada, 2003; Billet, 2012; Dávila & Honores, 2003; Harpham, 2005; Morrow, 1999; Stanton-Salazar, 2010), social trust (Flanagan et al., 2005; Harpham, 2005; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Stone, 2001), participation processes (Dávila & Honores, 2003; Larson & Hansen Moneta, 2006; Tennent et al., n.d.), active participation (Harpham, 2005; Jarret et al., 2005; Zeldin, Larson, Camino, & O’Connor, 2005), and internal political efficacy (Zimmerman & Zahniser, 1991).

Two studies were developed. The first one tests a multidimensional model of SC in youth participating in organizations that includes six dimensions that presented greater empirical consistency in the literature on youth social capital. The second study replicates the social capital model developed in the first study, and tests the stability of the factorial structure of the construct in an independent sample.

Study 1: Validation of a Multidimensional Model of SC in Youth

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 377 participants (age M = 21.15 years, SD = 2.3 years, 51% males), selected from 41 programs and organizations that served youth in two regions of Chile (Metropolitan Santiago and Maule region). The majority of participants were students (90%), and 28% of them had a paid job. In Chile, education is highly correlated with socioeconomic status (SES), and higher education comes with a network of social relationships that help build social capital (Núñez & Gutiérrez, 2004). Consequently, we use maternal education as a proxy for SES: 23% of the sample was classified as high (completed undergraduate or graduate studies), 55% as middle (completed secondary or secondary or technical studies), and 22% as low SES (completed primary studies or had some years of secondary education). Just 48% of the sample had registered to vote in national elections, at a time when registration was voluntary in Chile.

Most participants were involved in organizations that pursued prosocial (75%; e.g., support for people in need, for the economically disadvantaged) versus political (25%; e.g., political parties, students’ unions) goals. More than 37% of participants had been involved with their organizations between 6 months and a year, 22% for a year, and 41% for 2 years or more. All participants reported continuous coordinated activity within their organizations such as weekly virtual and monthly face-to-face exchanges with peers and facilitating teams.

Procedure

Youth were contacted and invited to voluntarily participate in the study through outreach to educational institutions, regional offices of youth, and community programs. Participants were informed of the aims of the study and their rights as participants, and they signed a written consent form. Instruments were administered by trained research assistants at the sites of participants’ organizations, and answered individually by participants in paper-and-pencil format.

The study procedure was approved by the institutional ethics review board of the authors’ institution.

Measures

Social trust was defined as a positive view of humanity, the belief that “most” people are fair, helpful, and trustworthy (Flanagan, 2003). This dimension was assessed using three items adapted from the World Values Survey (European Values Study, 2005), and two items used in Flanagan, Syvertsen, and Stout (2007). Examples of items for all the scales and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was estimated at .56.

Table 1.

Variable Indicators and Descriptive Statistics for the Hypothesized Six-Factor Model.

Latent variables	Indicator	M (SD)	Skew	Kurt
Social trust	I’ve learned that sometimes people can take advantage of my trust	2.02 (0.79)	1.03	3.53
	I’ve learned that you can always trust people	2.39 (0.74)	0.62	1.01
	Most people are basically honest	2.65 (0.70)	0.01	0.94
Interpersonal trust	In general, I trust my coworkers	3.52 (0.54)	−0.51	−0.92
	Overall, my coworkers are trustworthy people	3.54 (0.54)	−0.60	−0.81
	In general, I trust my family	3.74 (0.54)	−2.21	4.82
	In general, I trust my friends	3.68 (0.50)	−1.41	1.77
	In general, I trust my fellow students or coworkers	3.22 (0.73)	−0.91	1.09
Peer solidarity	I am listened to when I am depressed	3.31 (0.65)	−0.67	0.42
	I am satisfied with this group	3.43 (0.58)	−0.46	−0.70
	I can find people to help me solve problems	3.50 (0.56)	−0.67	−0.03
	I am advised when I have problems	3.36 (0.61)	−0.48	−0.26
	The members help each other in different tasks	3.50 (0.56)	−0.57	−0.71
Teamwork	I learned that teamwork requires some compromises	3.73 (0.46)	−1.38	0.67
	I learned to share responsibility	3.59 (0.55)	−0.97	−0.08
	I learned to be patient with other members of my organization	3.50 (0.58)	−0.82	0.11
	I learned that I can work with others even if I don’t like them	3.42 (0.65)	−0.95	0.76
Political efficacy	There are so many people participating in organizations and in local issues that it doesn’t matter if I do it	3.53 (0.64)	−1.32	1.53
	I prefer not to try something that I’m not good at	3.20 (0.80)	−0.67	−0.34
	Many elections and local decisions are not important enough to worry about them	3.24 (0.74)	−0.69	0.16
Active participation	Facilitators take into account participants in the decision making	4.18 (0.83)	−0.97	0.85
	Participants have a say in defining the goals and plans to follow	4.22 (0.80)	−0.72	−0.24
	Participants have opportunities to take on new roles and responsibilities within the group	4.26 (0.86)	−1.13	0.99

Interpersonal trust was defined as the belief or expectation that people close to you will provide assistance or help in case of need. It estimates the sense of emotional security provided by family, next of kin, and friends (Khodyakov, 2007). This dimension was assessed using four indicators adapted from the Chilean National Youth Survey (INJUV, 2006, 2009). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was estimated at .97.

Peer solidarity was defined as the perception of reciprocal support and affection with peers that is developed through social experiences and extracurricular activities (Dworkin, Larson, & Hansen, 2003). This dimension was assessed using two items adapted from Flanagan’s Classroom and Caring Community Scale (Flanagan et al., 2007) and three items from the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (García, Herrero, & Musitu, 2002). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was estimated at .92.

Teamwork was defined as the commitment to collaborative work that involves individual and group decision making. This dimension was assessed using four items from the Youth Experience Survey (YES) Scale (Larson et al., 2006). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was estimated at .93.

Political efficacy was defined as a person’s belief in his or her personal ability to influence political or community change through his or her own capacities and resources. This dimension was assessed using three indicators adapted from Zimmerman and Zahniser’s (1991) Sociopolitical Control subscale. Cronbach’s alpha estimate of internal consistency for this scale was .52.

Active participation was defined as youths’ perception of their involvement in decision making and problem solving (Zeldin et al., 2005) within their organizations. This dimension was assessed using three indicators tapping youth’s voice and opportunities for decision making within the organization (Zeldin et al., 2005). Cronbach’s alpha for this scale was estimated at .87.

Analytic Plan

Models of SC were estimated through confirmatory factor analysis using Mplus 6.1. Item loadings were restricted according to theoretical considerations. The model fit was evaluated with different indices, including chi-square, comparative fit index (CFI), the standardized root mean square residual (SRMR), and the root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA).

Results

The overall fit of the six-factor model was less than optimal as indicated by a significant χ²(203, N = 377) = 425.04, p = .000. However, incremental fit indices presented acceptable levels (CFI = 0.922, SRMR = 0.058, and RMSEA = 0.054). Analysis of the configuration of factor loadings indicates that these were not balanced across dimensions. The estimated loadings for social trust and political efficacy were much lower than those of the four factors in the model.

We decided to respecify the model and test a four-factor second-order model that included interpersonal trust, peer solidarity, teamwork, and active participation. Table 2 presents results of the structural model with loadings of the first-order factors on the second-order factor, and the complete model is presented in Figure 1.

Table 2.

Standardized Factor Loadings of the First-Order Four Factors on the Second-Order Social Capital Factor.

Latent variables and indicators	Estimate	SE	Est./SE	p
Interpersonal trust	0.77	0.036	21.21	<.001
Peer solidarity	0.89	0.033	26.76	<.001
Teamwork	0.79	0.039	20.19	<.001
Active participation	0.70	0.049	14.21	<.001

Figure 1.

Pattern of factor loadings for the post hoc second-order model of youth social capital, Study 1. AP = activity participation items. PS = peer solidarity items. TW = teamwork items. IT = interpersonal trust items.

Again, chi-square indicated that the model fit was not optimal (χ²(100, N = 373) = 241.212, p < .001), but the comparative indices, CFI = 0.93, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = 0.92, SRMR = 0.049, RMSEA = 0.062 (95% confidence interval [CI] = [0.052, 0.071]), suggested adequate fit of the data to the model.

Study 2: Replication of the SC Capital Model in a New Sample of Participants in Youth Organizations

We designed a second study to confirm the results of the four-factor model in an independent sample.

Method

Participants

The sample consisted of 150 participants (age M = 21.85 years, SD = 2.8 years, 51.3% males) drawn from 71 programs and organizations serving youth in the Maule region, Chile. The majority of participants were students (95%), and 25% of them had a paid job. Based on level of maternal education, 16% were classified as high (completed undergraduate or graduate studies), 53% as middle (completed secondary or secondary or technical studies), and 31% as low SES (completed primary studies or had some years of secondary education). Based on Jenkins, Andolina, Keeter, and Zukin’s (2003) classification, 62% of the participants were part of a civic–community organization, 29% were part of a nonconventional political organization, and 9% were part of a conventional political organization. More than 70% of them had been involved with their organizations for a year or more.

The procedure and measures were the same as those defined for Study 1.

Analytic strategy

We tested a factor model that included interpersonal trust, peer solidarity, teamwork, and active participation as first-order factors, and social capital as a second-order factor.

Results

Figure 2 shows the results of the four-factor model, including the first- and second-order factor loadings.

Figure 2.

Pattern of factor loadings for the post hoc second-order model of youth social capital, Study 2.

The model’s chi-square was significant (χ²(100, N = 150) = 155.897 p < .001), but the CFIs suggested, CFI = 0.95, TLI = 0.94, SRMR = 0.056, RMSEA = 0.062 (90% CI = [0.042, 0.080]), an adequate fit of the model to the data, with balanced loadings and weights of factors.

Discussion

The aim of this study was to advance and test an empirical model of social capital in youth. The hypothesized six-dimension model of SC was not supported by the data, but a four-factor model was a better representation of SC for youth involved in organizations. Results were replicated in an independent sample, indicating that the latent structure of the construct holds across samples drawn from similar contexts of youth organizations.

Evidence that the contribution of each component dimension of the four-factor model (i.e., teamwork, peer solidarity, and interpersonal trust) was homogeneous and balanced suggests this model is a plausible representation of SC in youth. Furthermore, the significant loadings of the teamwork, peer solidarity, and interpersonal trust items confirm that SC captures the social and instrumental resources exchanged in ties and relationships in which people are involved (Paldam, 2000). Stanton-Salazar (2010) defines SC as the key resources and forms of social support embedded in a person’s social network or associations and accessible through direct and indirect ties with institutional agents. Applied to our model, first-order factors capture components of close, cooperative, and sustained relationships over time. In our samples, these could reflect the reciprocal ties and social support exchanges associated with affiliation in organizations.

Although some of the SC dimensions in this study had been included separately in prior studies (Bassani, 2007; Harpham, 2005; Morrow, 1999; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Schaefer-McDaniel, 2004), current results integrate them in a conceptual model. In this model, interpersonal trust reflects the affective basis (e.g., emotional security) of the social bonds that connect people participating in cooperative relationships (Szcześniak, Colaco, & Rondón, 2012). Future studies could advance the identification of the mechanisms that connect repeated interactions with others, interpersonal trust, and cooperation over time.

Findings converge in suggesting that social trust and political efficacy, originally thought to be part of SC, are not core components of SC. In the case of social trust, current results disconfirm those of previous studies (Flanagan et al., 2005; Harpham, 2005; Onyx & Bullen, 2000; Stone, 2001). One possible explanation for this finding is that the social trust items capture a generalized belief in the goodwill of people in general, including those unknown. In fact, Baeza (2011) defines social trust as trust in strangers about whom one neither has information nor has established any contact. Alternatively, for youth participating in organizations, trust builds through close contact in continuous interpersonal encounters. Thus, a general disposition to trust unknown others would not capture the affective nature of the transactions exchanged in interpersonal networks within organizations. As Brehm and Rahn (1997) suggest, confidence in institutions or unknown others may be an output rather than a component of SC processes.

Results also highlight the importance of distinguishing between social and interpersonal trust as these are differently associated with SC. Differentiating social from interpersonal trust calls for the development of more sensitive measures to assess the psychosocial resources that are created through social exchanges in youth organizations, and would shed light on the processes involved in the creation of SC. In addition, a multidimensional understanding of trust and the socioemotional processes on which SC is grounded (e.g., emotional bonding, empathy), as well as the components that configure the core of this resource (Szcześniak et al., 2012), should be explored in depth within the context of youth organizations. Ideally, the affective and relational correlates of different types of trust should also be studied with group-level data.

Interestingly, indicators of political efficacy contributed marginally to SC, suggesting these beliefs are not core to the construct. In fact, political efficacy is a different theoretical construct as it focuses on a person’s beliefs about the outcomes of his or her behavior, in particular to influence others. From this perspective, it is possible to assume that political efficacy should be more closely related to outcomes such as political participation (Mannarini, Legittimo, & Taló, 2008) or political involvement (Sánchez, 2006). Brehm and Rahn (1997) found significant associations between civic participation and their measure of interpersonal social trust that, similarly to our measure of social trust, assessed trust in unknown others. It could also be that political efficacy is an outcome or by-product of social capital (Bassani, 2007) and, as such, it could be a correlate rather than a core component of SC. Alternatively, this result may reflect the lack of specificity of the indicators of political efficacy measured in this study.

Limitations and Directions for Future Studies

The cross-sectional design of the study precludes assessment of the dynamic processes through which social capital is constructed by youth involvement in organizations. Results do not speak to whether social capital resources are indeed developed or enhanced through affiliation once young people join the organizations. Questions about the timing of involvement, and whether particular periods of adolescence offer optimal opportunities for creating SC resources, are relevant ideas to address in future research. Furthermore, differentiating between resources that individual youth bring to the organization (e.g., personal competencies) that would be strengthened through processes of participation in organizations, from those created as a result of youth involvement in organizations, has important implications for intervention purposes.

The study of SC should be contextualized to reflect the specific dimensions of this concept that are relevant to the population and contexts studied. Participants’ data are nested within organizations, and there is a need to gain insights about the dynamics related to key components of SC at the aggregate level, in the case of this study, processes that take place at the interpersonal, group, or organizational level. Future research should operationalize indicators of social exchanges at the peer and organization level (Chinman, Wandersman, & Goodman, 2005).

Beyond the limitations, our results provide a novel empirical perspective, but future research should further explore the structure of SC in other samples and social contexts along with its potential benefits for youth development (Flanagan et al., 2007; Ryan & Junker, 2017). For optimal development, youth need to be embedded in networks providing a spectrum of social and institutional support. Voluntary associations are settings that provide psychosocial resources for youth development (Lerner, Almerigi, Theokas, & Lerner, 2005), foster processes of democratic socialization (Stolle & Hooghe, 2004), and promote social and civic participation that can contribute to the development of SC in their members.

Our results expand knowledge on specific assets that youth organizations can foster by enhancing opportunities for participants’ social connection, mostly in the form of what has been labeled “bonding” SC (i.e., networks, norms, trust; Putnam, 1993). Through the network of relationships and sociability that is built among peer and adult agents, youth organizations and programs can become settings that foster SC.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Part of this research was submitted as a thesis to the Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the master’s degree in social and community psychology. Support for this research was provided by the National Fund for Scientific and Technological Development (FONDECYT) grants 1141181 and 1085231. Patricio Cumsille acknowledges support from Centre for Social Conflict and Cohesion Studies, COES FONDECYT/FONDAP/15130009.

Author Biographies

Cristina Valenzuela is a master level community psychologist who currently works at the Faculty of Social Sciences and Humanities, Universidad Autónoma de Chile. Her research interests are in Social and Community Psychology.

M. Loreto Martínez is a professor of Psychology at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. Her research focuses on adolescent development in particular, autonomy in the context of family relationships, and the development of civic attitudes and commitments.

Patricio Cumsille is a professor of Psychology at Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile. His research addresses adolescent autonomy development, parent adolescent communication and quantitative methods.

References

Arriagada

(2003). Capital social: Potencialidades y limitaciones analíticas de un concepto [Social capital: Potential and analytical limitations of a concept]. Estudios Sociológicos, 21, 557-584.

Baeza

(2011). Juventud y confianza social en Chile [Youth and social trust in Chile]. Última Década, 19(34), 73-92. doi:10.4067/S0718-22362011000100005

Bassani

(2007). Five dimensions of social capital theory as they pertain to youth studies. Journal of Youth Studies, 10, 17-34. doi:10.1080/13676260701196087

Billet

(2012). Indicators of youth social capital. Youth Studies Australia, 31(2), 9-15.

Bourdieu

(1986). The forms of capital. In Richardson

(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology of education (pp. 241-258). Westport, CT: Greenwood.

Brehm

Rahn

(1997). Individual-level evidence for the causes and consequences of social capital. American Journal of Political Science, 41, 999-1023.

Cameron Kelly

. (2009). In preparation for adulthood: Exploring civic participation and social trust among young minorities. Youth & Society, 40, 526-540. doi:10.1177/0044118X08327584

Chinman

Wandersman

Goodman

(2005). A benefit-cost approach to understanding social participation and volunteerism in multilevel organizations. In Omoto

A. M.

(Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 105-127). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Christens

Dolan

(2010). Interweaving youth development, community development, and social change through youth organizing. Youth & Society, 43, 528-548. doi:10.1177/0044118X10383647

10.

Coleman

(1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94(Suppl.), 95-120. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2780243?uid=3737784&uid=2&uid=4&sid=21103268988941

11.

Dávila

Honores

C. G.

(2003). Capital social juvenil y evaluación programática hacia jóvenes [Youth social capital and program evaluation in young people]. Última Década, 11(18), 175-198. Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=19501808

12.

Duke

Skay

Pettingell

Borowsky

(2009). From adolescent connections to social capital: Predictors of civic engagement in young adulthood. Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 161-168.

13.

Dworkin

Larson

Hansen

(2003). Adolescents’ accounts of growth experiences in youth activities. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 32, 17-26. doi:10.1023/A:1021076222321

14.

Emery

(2013). Social capital and youth development: Toward a typology of program practices. New Directions for Youth Development, 138, 49-59.

15.

European Values Study. (2005). Study documentation: World values survey wave 5 (2005-2008) [Data archives and codebook]. Retrieved from http://www.jdsurvey.net/jds/jdsurveyAnalisis.jsp?ES_COL=131&Idioma=I&SeccionCol=10&ESID=501

16.

Flanagan

C. A.

(2003). Trust, identity and civic hope. Applied Developmental Science, 7, 165-171. doi:10.1207/S1532480XADS0703_7

17.

Flanagan

C. A.

Gallay

(2008). Adolescent development of trust (CIRCLE Working Paper 61). Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement. University of Maryland, College Park, MD: School of Public Policy.

18.

Flanagan

C. A.

Gill

Gallay

(2005). Social participation and social trust in adolescence: The importance of heterogeneous encounters. In Omoto

A. M.

(Ed.), Processes of community change and social action (pp. 149-166). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

19.

Flanagan

C. A.

Kim

Collura

Kopish

(2014). Community service and adolescent’s social capital. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 25(2), 1-15.

20.

Flanagan

C. A.

Syvertsen

A. K.

Stout

M. D.

(2007). Civic measurement models: Tapping adolescents’ civic engagement. College Park, MD: Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.

21.

Fukuyama

(1996). Confianza. Las Virtudes Sociales y la Capacidad de Generar Prosperidad [Trust: The social virtues and the capacity to create prosperity]. Buenos Aires, Argentina: Atlántida.

22.

García

Herrero

Musitu

(2002). Evaluación de recursos y estresores psicosociales en la comunidad [Assessment of resources and psychosocial stressors in the community]. Madrid, Spain: Editorial Síntesis.

23.

Harpham

(2005). Measuring the social capital of children (Working Paper No. 4). Retrieved from http://www.younglives.org.uk/sites/www.younglives.org.uk/files/YL-WP4-Harpham-MeasuringSocialCapital.pdf

24.

Harpham

Grant

Thomas

(2002). Measuring social capital in health surveys. Health Planning and Policy, 17, 106-111. doi:10.1093/heapol/17.1.106

25.

Instituto Nacional de la Juventud. (2006). Quinta Encuesta Nacional de Juventud [Fifth National Survey of Chilean Youth]. Santiago, Chile: Author.

26.

Instituto Nacional de la Juventud. (2009). Sexta Encuesta Nacional de Juventud [Sixth National Survey of Chilean Youth]. Santiago, Chile: Author.

27.

Jarret

Sullivan

Watkins

(2005). Developing social capital through participation in organized youth programs: Qualitative insights from three programs. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 41-55. doi:10.1002/jcop.20038

28.

Jenkins

Andolina

M. W.

Keeter

Zukin

(2003, April 3-6). Is civic behavior political? Exploring the multidimensional nature of political participation. Paper presented at the Annual conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago. Retrieved from http://pollcats.net/downloads/JAKZMW2003.pdf

29.

Jones

Perkins

(2006). Youth and adult perceptions of their relationships within community-based youth programs. Youth & Society, 38, 90-109. doi:10.1177/0044118X06287860

30.

Kahne

Nagaoka

Brown

O’Brien

Quinn

Thiede

(2001). Assessing after-school programs as contexts for youth development. Youth & Society, 32, 421-446. doi: 10.1177/0044118X01032004002

31.

Khodyakov

(2007). Trust as a process: A three-dimensional approach. Sociology, 41, 115-132. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c9b3/af467647cea62440beb64e81d3717ed15f2f.pdf

32.

Larson

, Hansen

D. M.

Moneta

(2006). Differing profiles of developmental experiences across types of organized youth activities. Developmental Psychology, 42, 849-863. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.849

33.

Leonard

(2008). Social and subcultural capital among teenagers in Northern Ireland. Youth & Society, 40, 224-244. doi:10.1177/0044118X08314243

34.

Lerner

Almerigi

Theokas

Lerner

(2005). Positive youth development. A view of the issues. Journal of Early Adolescence, 25, 10-16. doi:10.1177/0272431604273211

35.

Mannarini

Legittimo

Taló

(2008). Determinants of social and political participation among youth. A preliminary study. Psicología Política, 36, 95-117. Retrieved from http://www.uv.es/garzon/psicologia%20politica/N36-5.pdf

36.

Martínez

M. L.

Peñaloza

Valenzuela

(2012). Civic commitment in young activists: Emergent processes in the development of personal and collective identity. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 474-484. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.006

37.

Morrow

(1999). Conceptualizing social capital in relation to the well-being of children and young people: A critical review. Sociological Review, 47, 767-774. doi:10.1111/1467-954X.00194

38.

Núñez

Gutiérrez

(2004). Class discrimination and meritocracy in the labor market: Evidence from Chile. Estudios de Economía, 31(December). Retrieved from http://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=22131201

39.

Onyx

Bullen

(2000). Sources of social capital. In Winter

(Ed.), Social capital and public policy in Australia (pp. 105-135). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

40.

Paldam

(2000). Social capital: One or many? Definition and measurement. Journal of Economic Surveys, 14, 629-653. doi:10.1111/1467-6419.00127

41.

Programa de las Naciones Unidas para el Desarrollo. (2000). Desarrollo Humano en Chile [Human development in Chile] (Pilar Velasco Carvallo, ed.). Santiago, Chile: Author.

42.

Putnam

(1993). Making democracy work: Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

43.

Ryan

Junker

(2017). The development and testing of an instrument to measure youth social capital in the domain of postsecondary transitions. Youth and Society, 1-23. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0044118X16685233

44.

Sánchez

(2006). The role of group consciousness in political participation among Latinos in the United States. American Politics Research, 34, 427-450. doi:10.1177/1532673X05284417

45.

Schaefer-McDaniel

(2004). Conceptualizing social capital among young people: Towards a new theory. Children, Youth and Environments, 14, 140-150.

46.

Stanton-Salazar

R. D.

(2010). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status youth. Youth and Society, 43, 1066-1109. doi:10.1177/0044118X10382877

47.

Stolle

Hooghe

(2004). The roots of social capital: Attitudinal and networks mechanism in the relation between youth and adult indicators of social capital. Acta Politica, 39, 422-441. doi:10.1057/palgrave.ap.5500081

48.

Stone

(2001). Measuring social capital: Towards a theoretically informed measurement framework for researching social capital in family and community life. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.

49.

Szcześniak

Colaco

Rondón

(2012). Development of interpersonal trust among children and adolescents. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 43, 50-58. doi:10.2478/v10059-012-0006-5

50.

Tennent

Farrell

Tayler

(n.d.). Social capital sense of community: What do they mean for young children’s success at school? Brisbane, Australian: Queensland University of Technology.

51.

Zeldin

Camino

O’Connor

(2005). Intergenerational relationships and partnerships in community programs: Purpose, practice, and research directions for research. Journal of Community Psychology, 33, 1-10. doi:10.1002/jcop.20042

52.

Zimmerman

Zahniser

(1991). Refinements of sphere-specific measures of perceived control: Development of a sociopolitical control scale. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 189-204. doi:10.1002/1520-6629(199104)19::2<189:AID-JCOP2290190210>3.0.CO;2-6