The Immigrant-Native Gap in Subjective Well-Being in Western European Countries: Assessing the Role of Social Capital

Abstract

Immigrants in Western Europe typically exhibit lower levels of subjective well-being than their native-born counterparts. We argue that because of disruptions in social networks and linguistic and cultural barriers to immigrant integration, social capital is a likely source of immigrant-native inequality in well-being. Using data from the first five waves of the European Social Survey, we find that social capital, measured by several indicators of informal social connections and generalized trust, explains more than half of the non-Western immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being that remains after adjusting for the standard predictors of well-being. Social capital also significantly reduces the smaller Western immigrant-native gap. In addition, we examine potential differential returns to social capital and find that immigrants and natives benefit equally from social capital.

Keywords

immigration social capital well-being

Introduction

Amid rising concerns about immigration, the refugee/migrant crisis, and social conflict in Europe, immigrant integration is an ever-increasing challenge and an important policy concern (e.g., Alba and Foner 2014). The increasing share of immigrants from non-Western countries in European societies means that immigrant populations are now more diverse than ever (Faist 2009), which has implications for immigrant integration and immigrant-native gaps in life outcomes. One indicator of immigrant integration that is receiving more attention in the literature is subjective well-being, particularly the extent to which immigrants’ subjective well-being is on par with that of their native-born counterparts (e.g., Safi 2010; Bartram 2011). Because subjective well-being is foundational to myriad positive outcomes, such as better health (Cohen and Pressman 2006), productivity (Oswald, Proto, and Sgroi 2015), future income (De Neve and Oswald 2012), and helping others (Aknin et al. 2013), understanding the sources of the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being sheds light on important immigrant-native inequalities. In addition, higher subjective well-being among immigrants may help alleviate social inequalities and reduce potential friction or conflicts in immigrant-receiving societies.

Studies of immigrants’ subjective well-being have widely documented an immigrant disadvantage in Europe (Bălţătescu 2007; Hendriks 2015; Hendriks, Ludwigs, and Veenhoven 2016), finding that this gap persists over time and across generations (Safi 2010). Prior studies have largely attributed this gap to differences in objective economic circumstances (Hendriks 2015), perceived discrimination (Safi 2010; de Vroome and Hooghe 2015), and to a lesser extent, a lower sense of belonging among immigrants, although the empirical evidence on this last point is mixed (Kóczán 2016). None of these factors, however, fully account for the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being, thus suggesting there are other sources of inequality in well-being that have yet to be identified. We propose that social capital, which has received much attention in the wider literature on subjective well-being (e.g., Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez 2013) and been identified as an important predictor of immigrant well-being (Bak-Klimek et al. 2015), may be key to more fully understanding the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being.

Immigrants often have lower levels of social capital because they tend to have fewer family and friendship connections in the host society and their social networks may be constrained due to linguistic and cultural barriers (Vega, Kolody, and Valle 1987; Martinovic, Van Tubergen, and Maas 2009). These differences in social capital might be important in explaining the immigrant-native gap in well-being. However, hardly any studies consider the extent to which social capital contributes to this gap. An important exception, de Vroome and Hooghe (2014), examines Moroccan and Turkish immigrants to the Netherlands. Because the determinants of subjective well-being may be culturally contingent, however, it is also important to investigate whether the link between social capital and the immigrant-native gap in well-being holds for different groups of immigrants across multiple destination countries.

Using data from Waves 1 through 5 of the European Social Survey (ESS) from 15 Western European countries, this study examines immigrant-native gaps in social capital and subjective well-being and assesses the extent to which social capital explains this gap for both Western and non-Western immigrants. Before presenting the analyses and discussing the results, we begin by defining subjective well-being and social capital, explicating the link between the two, and briefly reviewing previous research on this link. Following this discussion, we review scholarship on social capital among immigrants and discuss important potential native-immigrant disparities in social capital.

Background

Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being

Subjective well-being refers to “a broad category of phenomena that include people’s emotional responses, domain satisfactions and global judgments of life satisfaction” (Diener et al. 1999, 277). Among these three domains, most research in this area focuses on the emotional (happiness) and global life satisfaction components (e.g., Safi 2010; Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez 2013; Siedlecki et al. 2014). A growing body of scholarship has begun to focus on the potential importance of social capital for subjective well-being (e.g., Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez 2013).

Although there is no universally accepted definition of social capital, the term generally refers to networks of personal relationships and contacts that enable or constrain behaviors and goals (Bourdieu 1986; Coleman 1988; Portes 1998). While social networks are central to almost all definitions of social capital, many scholars also consider the subjective content of social connections, particularly trust, as a component of social capital (e.g., Putnam 2000; for discussions of trust’s importance in definitions of social capital, see Adler and Kwon 2002; Glanville and Bienenstock 2009). Given that social capital is a broad umbrella concept, it is important to consider the implications of its various forms for outcomes. Bonding social capital refers to social ties between socially similar individuals, whereas bridging social capital refers to connections between sociodemographically dissimilar individuals (Putnam 2000; Szreter and Woolcock 2004). Pichler and Wallace (2007) distinguish between informal social capital, or the informal social connections of friends, family, and so on, and formal social capital, which involves civic engagement and participation in formal voluntary associations.¹

Regardless of the type of social capital, the fundamental insight from scholarship in this area is that social connections provide access to resources that can facilitate the pursuit of both instrumental and expressive actions (Lin 2001). Expressive actions are aimed at conserving valued resources and do not have goals beyond the action itself (e.g., when a friend or family member seeks sympathy in complaining about his or her boss). Instrumental actions, in contrast, seek to elicit further resources rather than simply maintaining them (e.g., seeking a job or promotion). Because the type of social capital has implications for the kinds of actions it can facilitate, the form/s of social capital that are most advantageous depends on the outcome in question (Lin 2001; Glanville and Bienenstock 2009). In the following, we articulate the theoretical linkage between social networks and subjective well-being before returning to this point in the context of subjective well-being.

There is ample evidence of a strong link between social networks and subjective well-being (Diener and Seligman 2004; Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez 2013). As Putnam (2000, 332) puts it, “The single most common finding from a half century’s research on the correlates of life satisfaction…is that happiness is best predicted by the breadth and depth of one’s social connections.” Scholars have proposed several potential reasons for the association between social connections and subjective well-being. For example, some suggest that human beings are hardwired to crave social connections as a way of creating a sense of belonging that leads to subjective well-being (Baumeister and Leary 1995). Others propose that social connections strengthen self-esteem, which leads to greater well-being, or that the simple pleasure of companionship itself contributes to well-being (Pichler 2006). However, the most commonly cited explanation is that social networks provide vital social support; quite simply, social connections lead to increased subjective well-being because they aid in coping with the vicissitudes of daily life. For example, social networks can provide instrumental support, such as monetary assistance, as well as socioemotional support. Both types of support reduce stress, which promotes subjective well-being (Myers 1999; Argyle 2001; Pearlin et al. 1981). Other scholars distinguish between the provision of support and the expectation that support would be available when needed, suggesting that expected support alone may be enough to boost well-being (Siedlecki et al. 2014).

Given that social support is key to the theoretical linkage between social capital and subjective well-being, what type of social capital is most likely to contribute to subjective well-being? Based on previous theory and research, we argue that bonding social capital is more likely than bridging social capital to provide socioemotional support. Because social similarity is a factor in developing a close relationship (Granovetter 1973), bonding social capital is more likely to be characterized by strong and dense ties than bridging social capital (Lancee 2010). As Lin (2001) argues, bonding social capital is geared toward attaining expressive goals, such as socioemotional support, which is important for subjective well-being, whereas bridging social capital is more likely to contribute to instrumental goals.² Previous research has documented that closer social ties provide a greater amount of emotional support than more distal ties (Wellman and Wortley 1990). In terms of instrumental support, such as financial assistance, research also documents that closer ties provide these forms more often than more distal ties (Pearlin et al. 1981; Wellman and Wortley 1990). Thus, it is reasonable to expect that bonding social capital is more germane to discussions of subjective well-being than bridging social capital. Results from a handful of studies that rely on very limited proxies for bonding and bridging social capital are consistent with this expectation (Kim, Subramanian, and Kawachi 2006; Beaudoin 2009; Murayama et al. 2015).³

However, regardless of whether ties are bonding or bridging, in considerations of social capital, the resources embedded in social networks are of fundamental importance (Lin 2001). The networks of disadvantaged groups, for example, contain fewer embedded socioeconomic resources (Lin 2000). As a result, when it comes to subjective well-being, while close ties may be able to provide members of disadvantaged groups with socioemotional support, they may be less able to provide the financial support that could lead to a greater sense of security, which promotes better subjective well-being.

Interpersonal trust, or the expectation of nonexploitative behavior in others, is another type of social capital that has received a good deal of attention in the literature on subjective well-being (e.g., Helliwell and Putnam 2004; Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez 2013). There are multiple forms of interpersonal trust. Particularized trust, or what Yamagishi and Yamagishi (1994) label knowledge-based trust, is trust in specific persons known by the actor. Generalized trust extends to persons not directly known by the actor and involves default expectations about the trustworthiness of others or “a belief in the benevolence of human nature in general” (Yamagishi and Yamagishi 1994, 139). While early social capital theory stressed both types of trust (Coleman 1988), to date, generalized trust has received much more attention in the literature on both subjective well-being and social capital as well as the wider literature on social capital, particularly in the scholarship inspired by Putnam.

Trust might lead to greater subjective well-being for multiple reasons. First, trust may enhance social support by strengthening norms of reciprocity that buttress social support or foster the expectation that social support would be available if needed (Putnam 2000; Glanville and Story 2018). Second, generalized trust is associated with a greater sense of interpersonal control (Rotter 1971), which in turn enhances subjective well-being (Grob 2000). In the next section, we consider why immigrants might face deficits in multiple forms of social capital that in turn may contribute to the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being.

Immigrant Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being

It is well documented in migration studies that social networks and the resources embedded within them are crucial for immigrants’ social, cultural, and psychological adjustment in host nations (Boyd 1989; Portes 1998). Not only do social networks influence migration decisions, but they also facilitate the social and economic incorporation of immigrants after migration. Immigrants use their social ties to obtain resources, information, and valuable social support, which the literature suggests is one of the strongest predictors of immigrant well-being (Bak-Klimek et al. 2015).

Despite the crucial importance of social networks for immigrant adjustment and acculturation in destination countries, immigrants end up with a social capital disadvantage compared to the native-born population, with potential negative implications for immigrant subjective well-being and the immigrant-native gap. In other words, even though migration improves the economic situations of many immigrants, migration’s social costs may offset the boost in subjective well-being that results from improvements in migrants’ economic status and may even result in a net loss to subjective well-being (Bartram 2011). Migration is costly in terms of social networks and the resources embedded within them because it is often accompanied by significant and consequential changes that disrupt existing social ties (Hendriks, Ludwigs, and Veenhoven 2016). At the same time, the formation of new social networks in the host nation is often deterred by linguistic and cultural differences with the native population, leading to social capital deficits among migrants, particularly those from non-Western countries (Martinovic, Van Tubergen, and Maas 2009). These barriers contribute to smaller social networks and lower levels of social contact and support among immigrants compared to natives. Therefore, due to the disruptions in migrants’ social networks and barriers to forming new social connections after migration, immigrants often have fewer social connections in the host society, which can negatively affect their psychological well-being (Vega, Kolody, and Valle 1987; de Vroome and Hooghe 2014).

In addition to lower levels of social connections, there is also reason to expect that fewer resources will be embedded within immigrants’ social connections in comparison to the native-born population. First, the principle of homophily — that is, the tendency for individuals to connect with similar others (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001) — may lead to segregated social networks among immigrants. Second, residential segregation shapes the structure of immigrants’ networks and limits contact with the native-born population (Schlueter 2012; Martinović 2013). Therefore, even large social networks among immigrants might be primarily composed of co-ethnic contacts. As a result, immigrants, particularly non-Western immigrants who face significant social, economic, and cultural disadvantages, may be more likely to be located in social networks with lower levels of embedded resources (Lin 2000; Behtoui and Neergaard 2010). In short, a lack of contact with natives may have enduring consequences for the socioeconomic resources available through immigrants’ social connections, which might contribute to the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being.

Moreover, recent studies of immigrants in Europe indicate that immigrants, particularly those from non-Western societies, may be less trusting than natives (Dinesen and Hooghe 2010; Dinesen 2012). The cultural perspective suggests that immigrants’ origin is an important determinant of their level of trust (Uslaner 2008) and that therefore a significant trust gap exists between immigrants from low-trust, non-Western countries and the native-born populations of Western European countries. The experiential perspective, on the other hand, suggests that immigrants’ environments and experiences in the host country influence their levels of generalized trust (Dinesen 2012). Negative experiences and perceived discrimination among immigrants, particularly those from non-Western countries, are likely to erode generalized trust and widen the trust gap between immigrants and natives.

Natives and immigrants might also experience differential returns to social capital in terms of its effects on subjective well-being, which may also shape the immigrant-native gap in well-being. The literature on social capital suggests competing expectations as to the payoff from social capital (Lin 2000). In particular, immigrants may receive higher returns from social capital because social networks are so crucial for economic and social integration. For instance, religious attendance may be more important for immigrants because religious institutions help with social integration and minimize the social isolation that immigrants are more likely to experience (Hao and Johnson 2000). Immigrants might also receive higher returns from family and kin-based networks because they may be more reliant on such connections, which play significant roles in immigrant adjustment (de Vroome and Hooghe 2014). Further, given that immigrants overall may have limited social networks compared to the native-born population (Martinovic, Van Tubergen, and Maas 2009), the formation of new ties in the host country might be more consequential for immigrants.

On the other hand, the scholarship on potential “downsides of social capital” (Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Portes and Landolt 1996; Portes 1998) suggests that immigrants may benefit less, instead of more, from close-knit social relationships. Portes (1998), for example, points out that close-knit relationships of disadvantaged groups may constrain economic opportunities through norms and sanctions that level aspirations and discourage the formation of more advantageous social connections. While the focus in these discussions is often on economic opportunities, it may be the case that these processes impede subjective well-being as well, beyond the indirect path through economic circumstances. For example, individuals who feel overly burdened by the expectations of insular groups may suffer from stress. We are aware of only one existing study that has examined whether social networks differentially predict subjective well-being for immigrants versus natives. Comparing immigrants from Turkey and Morocco to natives in the Netherlands, de Vroome and Hooghe (2014) find that frequency of contact with friends predicts subjective well-being to an equal extent for both immigrants and natives. Nonetheless, given the emphasis on potential differential returns to social capital in the literature, further study is warranted.

Despite social capital’s clear significance for immigrant social adjustment, previous research on social capital and immigrant subjective well-being has mainly focused on immigrants, with no comparison to the native-born population (e.g., Neto 2001; Amit 2010; a notable exception is de Vroome and Hooghe 2014). It is therefore important to examine the extent to which immigrants’ social networks and the resources embedded within them have implications for native-immigrant gaps in well-being. In other words, although extant research on immigrants’ subjective well-being highlights social capital’s potential importance in relation to other predictors of well-being, it does not say much about whether social capital mitigates or contributes to the gap in well-being, nor does it inform us on whether social capital is more or less important as a predictor of well-being for the immigrant population vis-à-vis natives. This is an important gap in the literature given the social capital disparities between immigrants and natives.

Data, Measures, and Methods

The data analyzed in this article come from Waves 1 through 5 of the ESS, which is a cross-country survey conducted in over thirty European countries biannually since 2002.⁴ Within each surveyed country, the ESS obtained representative samples of all residents of private households aged 15 and older.⁵ The ESS is appropriate for this study because it includes several measures of social capital and the sample includes a sizable number of immigrants. However, an important limitation in using the ESS to study immigrant-native differences is that ESS interviews were conducted in the country’s official language. Hence, it is likely that recently arrived immigrants who do not speak the language of the destination country well are underrepresented. A potential consequence of the underrepresentation of less well-integrated immigrants in the ESS is that differences in subjective well-being and social capital between immigrants and the native-born population may be underestimated. However, what is striking about prior findings on the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being is that this gap continues in the long term, beyond the point where one would expect differences in subjective well-being that transpire due to short-term changes in life circumstances (Safi 2010). Thus, samples of immigrants who speak the destination country’s language well are still highly useful in understanding this gap. Moreover, the ESS remains an important source of data for studying immigrants in Europe because it includes a sizeable number of immigrants across several countries and is therefore widely used as a source of data for studying social processes among immigrants and between immigrants and natives (e.g., Dinesen and Hooghe 2010; Safi 2010).⁶

Like Safi (2010), we limit our investigation to Western European countries. While the ESS includes several former communist nations in Eastern Europe, the immigration dynamic is likely to be quite different in these countries (Dinesen and Hooghe 2010). For example, many residents in Eastern European countries became “immigrants” after the division of a formerly united country (Dinesen and Hooghe 2010). The Western European countries that are included in at least one wave of the ESS and have sufficient number of immigrants in the sample include Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Great Britain, Greece, Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland.⁷ Waves 1 through 5 surveyed 140,840 respondents in these 15 countries. After listwise deletion, the sample is reduced to 127,687 respondents, which includes 3,529 Western immigrants and 6,446 non-Western immigrants.

Dependent Variable

The ESS provides two indicators of subjective well-being: (1) “Taking all things together, how happy would you say you are?” and (2) “All things considered, how satisfied are you with your life as a whole nowadays?” Respondents were asked to answer these questions on a 0 to 10 scale, with “0” being “extremely unhappy/dissatisfied” and “10” being “extremely happy/satisfied.” Research on subjective well-being often combines these indicators, and we follow this practice by constructing a measure of subjective well-being as the average of the happiness and life satisfaction variables.⁸

Independent Variables

Immigrant status

We used information about country of birth and parental country of birth to distinguish between the native-born, Western, and non-Western immigrant populations.⁹ We define respondents as first-generation immigrants if both they and their parents were born abroad.¹⁰

Social capital variables

Waves 1 through 5 provide measures of five distinct aspects of social capital. First, there are two indicators of informal socializing. One question asked respondents how often they meet socially with friends, relatives, or work colleagues. Response categories include “never,” “less than once a month,” “once a month,” “several times a month,” “once a week,” “several times a week,” and “every day.” The second measure of informal socializing asks respondents to indicate how often they take part in social activities compared to other people of their age, with the response choices ranging from “1” = “much less than most” to “5” = “much more than most.” Given the different scales, these items are standardized and then averaged to create the index for informal socializing.¹¹

The next measure of social capital, discussion partner, relates to whether respondents have anyone with whom to discuss intimate and personal matters. While both informal socializing and discussion partner are aspects of informal social capital, discussion partner is distinct from the frequency of social interactions in that it captures social support. Indeed, the correlation between the two is low (0.19). While information on the sociodemographic characteristics of discussion partners and people with whom the respondent socializes are unavailable, given the principle of homophily and the fact that the discussion partner item asks about intimate or personal matters, it is likely that these items mainly tap bonding social capital.

Generalized trust

Generalized trust is derived from an index of three items: (1) “Most people can be trusted or you can’t be too careful in dealing with people,” (2) “Most people would try to take advantage of you if they got the chance or try to be fair,” and (3) “Most of the time people try to be helpful or they are mostly looking out for themselves.” Respondents were asked to place themselves on a 0 to 10 scale for each (e.g., “0” = “most people can be trusted” and “10” = “you can’t be too careful in dealing with people”). We reverse coded the items so that higher values indicate higher trust. Previous research on these items indicates that they are conceptually consistent and together provide a strong measure of latent generalized trust (Paxton 1999).

Financial resources

Financial resources comes from the question, “If for some reason you were in serious financial difficulties and had to borrow money to make ends meet, how difficult or easy would that be?” with responses ranging from “1” (“very difficult”) to “5” (“very easy”). While this question is a proxy because it does not specify that the respondent would be borrowing through social networks, it is likely to tap into the availability of financial resources within the respondent’s social network since family and friends are a probable avenue for borrowing money. While there are also potential formal means of borrowing money, this item asks about “serious financial difficulties” and thus connotes circumstances beyond needing a loan to purchase a home or car, such as needing help with one’s rent, that people often address through informal means. Furthermore, if a respondent indicates that he or she would have difficulty borrowing money, this would suggest that the respondent does not have the ability to borrow money within his or her social network. We admit that the converse, a respondent indicating that he or she would be able to borrow money with ease, is less clearly suggestive that he or she is referring to borrowing from friends and family, but our models control for socioeconomic circumstances related to the respondent’s capacity to borrow through formal means. In addition, there is empirical evidence that this item taps social capital. Portela, Neira, and Salinas-Jimenez (2013), for instance, use this same ESS item as a measure of social capital and find in their factor analysis that it loads on the same factor as other social capital items. However, this item should not be treated as interchangeable with the discussion partner measure. It taps instrumental resources, whereas discussion partner taps socioemotional resources. Furthermore, these items are barely correlated (0.10).

Finally, given prior findings of religion’s particular importance for immigrant adjustment (Bankston 2014) and religious attendance as a source of social capital (Ellison and George 1994; Lim and Putnam 2010), we include religious attendance as a proxy measure for the social capital that stems from religious involvement. Religious attendance indicates the frequency with which respondents attend religious services “apart from special occasions such as weddings and funerals,” a survey item that has seven response categories ranging from “never” to “every day.”

Control variables

We follow previous research on subjective well-being in selecting our control variables (e.g., Argyle 2001; Dolan, Peasgood, and White 2008). First, income has been established as an important predictor of subjective well-being, although at higher levels of income, additional income does not boost well-being as much as at lower levels (Helliwell and Putnam 2004). Because a large number of respondents did not answer the question on their household’s total annual net income from all sources, we created a series of dummy variables with one dummy indicating that income was missing. Respondents whose household income was in the lowest three (country-specific) deciles, middle four deciles, and top three deciles were coded as “low,” “middle,” and “high” income, respectively. We also include years of education to more fully capture socioeconomic status. Next, we include unemployment, a strong negative predictor of subjective well-being. Our models also include age and age squared because age has a curvilinear relationship with subjective well-being such that younger and older adults have high levels of well-being than middle-aged adults. We also control for gender, whether the respondent is married or cohabiting, and whether he or she has a child living at home. Minority status was measured as a dummy variable for whether the respondent said he or she belonged to a minority ethnic group in the current country.¹²

Beyond the sociodemographic correlates of subjective well-being, several additional controls are relevant in assessing the relationship between social capital and subjective well-being. Self-rated health is measured with the response to the question, “How is your health in general?,” and ranges from “1” = “very bad” to “5” = “very good.” An important predictor of subjective well-being for immigrants is perception of discrimination (Safi 2010). The ESS asks respondents if they considered themselves a member of a group that is discriminated against in their current country. Perceived discrimination is a dummy variable indicating whether the respondent indicated that he or she was a member of a group discriminated against on the basis of race, nationality, religion, language, or ethnic group. We also control for institutional trust. Immigrants often have higher levels of institutional trust than the native-born population (Röder and Mühlau 2012), and that might suppress the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being. Institutional trust is an index of respondent’s trust in politicians, the parliament, the legal system, and the police. Finally, because subjective well-being is generally lower in urban areas and immigrants disproportionately reside in urban areas, we control for urban residence.¹³

Analytic Approach

While this paper’s aim is to assess the degree to which social capital might explain the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being and is therefore focused on individual-level relationships, because respondents are nested within countries and waves, multilevel models are necessary to correct for the clustering of standard errors. The multivariate models are estimated as three-level models in which individuals are nested within country-waves, which are nested in countries.¹⁴ In addition, the impact of immigrant status on subjective well-being is likely to vary by destination. Multilevel models allow us to treat the slope for immigrant status as random. Preliminary analyses showed that the coefficient for non-Western immigrant varies by country, whereas the coefficient for Western immigrant does not. Thus, in the multivariate models, we incorporate a random slope for non-Western immigrant. Hence, this coefficient should be interpreted as the average predicted effect of non-Western immigrant status. The models are estimated using Stata 14.

To assess the degree to which social capital may explain the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being, it is necessary to assess several relationships (Baron and Kenny 1986). First, immigrant status must be related to social capital. Second, social capital must predict subjective well-being. Third, the predicted effect of immigrant status on subjective well-being must decrease when the social capital variables are included in the model.¹⁵ Thus, we begin by examining whether there are differences in the levels of different types of social capital across immigrants and natives. We then present a series of models predicting subjective well-being to illustrate the impact of adding the social capital variables to the model.

Results

Immigrant-Native Differences in Social Capital

The first panel of Table 1 summarizes weighted descriptive statistics for the social capital measures for the immigrant and native subsamples. In the second panel of Table 1, we report immigrant-native differences net of the control variables described previously. These models are estimated with multilevel models for each social capital variable (separately) and incorporate a random slope for non-Western immigrant. First, comparing the univariate statistics for non-Western immigrants to those of the native-born population, we see that non-Western immigrants socialize informally less frequently, are slightly less likely to indicate that they have a discussion partner with whom they can discuss intimate and personal matters, express lower levels of generalized trust, and indicate a lower level of the availability of financial resources. However, non-Western immigrants have higher levels of religious attendance. When the control variables are taken into account, non-Western immigrants continue to indicate higher levels of religious attendance but lower levels of every other type of social capital. These social capital differences correspond to our expectations regarding social capital deficits among immigrants, particularly non-Western immigrants.

Table 1.

Immigrant/Native-Born Differences in Social Capital.

	Non-Western Immigrant		Western Immigrant		Native-Born		Nonwestern/Native Difference with Controls^a	Western/Native Difference with Controls^a
Waves 1–5	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Mean	SE	Nonwestern/Native Difference with Controls^a	Western/Native Difference with Controls^a
Informal socializing	–0.130***	0.014	–0.032	0.022	0.000	0.003	–0.154***	–0.083***
Discussion partner	0.898***	0.005	0.909	0.008	0.923	0.001	–0.042***	–0.015***
Generalized trust	5.038***	0.031	5.429***	0.046	5.222	0.007	–0.242***	–0.117*
Financial resources	2.427***	0.020	2.866	0.033	2.855	0.005	–0.365***	–0.111***
Religious attendance	1.833***	0.028	1.543***	0.042	1.252	0.006	0.238***	–0.113***
N	6,446		3,529		117,712

Note. Difference between immigrant group and native-born.

^aCoefficients are from multilevel models for each social capital variable.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

The univariate statistics indicate fewer social capital differences between Western immigrants and natives. In fact, the only statistically significant differences are that Western immigrants have higher levels of generalized trust and religious attendance than natives. These differences may be owing in part to the higher average socioeconomic status of Western immigrants.¹⁶ However, when these differences are adjusted for the control variables, we find that Western immigrants exhibit lower levels of every form of social capital. In other words, while Western immigrants are not disadvantaged in terms of social capital overall, it is likely that their relative newcomer status impacts their ability to build social capital. Although the multivariate models indicate a social capital disadvantage for Western immigrants, that disadvantage is quite a bit larger for non-Western immigrants, whose coefficient is two to three times larger for every form of social capital for which non-Western immigrants are disadvantaged.¹⁷

Modeling the Immigrant-Native Gap in Subjective Well-Being

We now turn to the models predicting subjective well-being, which are summarized in Table 2. Model 1 includes only non-Western and Western immigrant status to provide the baseline average difference in subjective well-being between natives and immigrants across the Western European countries in our data. Model 2 adds the control variables to provide a baseline against which to assess the extent to which the forms of social capital we are able to include explain the remaining immigrant-native gaps in subjective well-being. Model 3 adds all social capital variables simultaneously.

Table 2.

Predicting Subjective Well-Being, N = 127,687.

	Model 1	Model 2	Model 3
	Immigrant Status Only	Adding Controls	Adding Social Capital
Non-Western immigrant	−0.320***	−0.215***	−0.084*
	(0.047)	(0.039)	(0.037)
Western immigrant	−0.107***	−0.076**	−0.011
	(0.030)	(0.027)	(0.026)
Informal socializing			0.280***
			(0.006)
Discussion partner			0.470***
			(0.016)
Generalized trust			0.140***
			(0.003)
Financial resources			0.122***
			(0.004)
Religious attendance			0.032***
			(0.003)
Years of education		0.009***	−0.006***
		(0.001)	(0.001)
Middle income		0.256***	0.181***
		(0.013)	(0.013)
High income		0.396***	0.270***
		(0.014)	(0.014)
Income missing		0.296***	0.211***
		(0.015)	(0.014)
Unemployed		−0.761***	−0.651***
		(0.020)	(0.020)
Age		−0.049***	−0.043***
		(0.001)	(0.001)
Age squared		0.001***	0.000***
		(0.000)	(0.000)
Female		0.115***	0.091***
		(0.009)	(0.009)
Married or cohabiting		0.524***	0.486***
		(0.010)	(0.010)
Child at home		−0.080***	−0.030**
		(0.010)	(0.010)
Minority		−0.134***	−0.111***
		(0.025)	(0.024)
Perceived discrimination		−0.254***	−0.224***
		(0.028)	(0.027)
Institutional trust		0.168***	0.108***
		(0.002)	(0.003)
Self-rated health		0.566***	0.473***
		(0.005)	(0.005)
Urban residence		−0.085***	−0.076***
		(0.010)	(0.009)
Constant	7.410***	4.713***	3.878***
	−0.155	(0.121)	(0.099)

Note. Standard errors in parentheses.

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests).

Before adding the control variables, non-Western and Western immigrants are predicted to score 0.32 and 0.11 units lower on subjective well-being than natives, respectively. Hence, both groups of immigrants appear to be at a disadvantage in terms of subjective well-being, with non-Western immigrants being considerably more disadvantaged.¹⁸ Unsurprisingly, when the controls for socioeconomic status, perceived discrimination, health, and so on are included in Model 2, immigrant-native gaps decline. Non-Western and Western immigrants are predicted to score 0.22 and 0.08 units lower on subjective well-being, respectively. However, each gap remains statistically significant, suggesting that economic resources and other standard predictors of subjective well-being are not enough to explain the immigrant-native gap in well-being. Turning now to Model 3, we can see that when all social capital variables are included, the non-Western immigrant-native gap declines by about 60 percent (from –0.215 to –0.084), a statistically significant reduction.¹⁹ The Western immigrant-native disadvantage is also substantially reduced and no longer statistically significant. Altogether, because the results reported in Table 1 suggest that immigrant status is connected to social capital and when the social capital variables are added to the model for subjective well-being the coefficients for immigrant status are reduced, there is evidence that social capital mediates the relationship between immigrant status and subjective well-being. What, though, are the specific relationships between social capital and subjective well-being?

As expected, the forms of social capital included in our model are all positively associated with subjective well-being net of controls. A one standard deviation increase (0.81) in informal socializing predicts a 0.23 increase in subjective well-being. Having someone with whom to discuss personal matters predicts close to a half point increase in subjective well-being. The predicted difference in subjective well-being for a respondent who is at the extreme low versus high end of the trust index is 1.4. However, only a trivial proportion of respondents occupy the index’s extreme ends. A more realistic one standard deviation increase in generalized trust (1.89) is associated with a 0.26 unit increase in subjective well-being. Respondents who report that it would be very easy to borrow money to make ends meet score 0.49 points higher on subjective well-being than respondents who report that it would be very difficult. As a benchmark against which to judge the substantive importance of these relationships, we note that being married, which the literature views as one of the most substantial predictors of subjective well-being (Dolan, Peasgood, and White 2008), predicts about a half a point greater subjective well-being. With regard to religious attendance, we see that the predicted effect size is more modest. For example, attending religious services more than once a week in comparison to never attending is predicted to boost subjective well-being by 0.16 units.

In sum, the evidence so far is suggestive that each type of social capital in our model may mediate the influence of immigrant status on subjective well-being. However, it is also worth considering how much each aspect of social capital contributes to the mediation and formally testing the statistical significance of each indirect path. Therefore, in supplemental analyses, we assessed the indirect paths more formally by using Mplus to estimate a structural equation model (results available on request).²⁰ Results from the supplementary analysis are strongly consistent with the idea that social capital mediates the relationship between immigrant status and subjective well-being. Each indirect coefficient is highly statistically significant. For non-Western immigrants, informal socializing represents about 18 percent of the total predicted effect, discussion partner represents about 9 percent, trust about 14 percent, and financial resources about 19 percent. In contrast, the subjective well-being of non-Western immigrants is slightly boosted by virtue of higher religious attendance. In other words, non-Western immigrants’ higher religious attendance slightly suppresses their deficit in subjective well-being compared with natives, but this suppression effect is quite small. For Western immigrants, informal socializing represents about 33 percent of the total predicted effect, discussion partner represents about 11 percent, trust about 22 percent, financial resources about 21 percent, and religious attendance about 6 percent.

The coefficients for the control variables are in line with the findings of previous research on subjective well-being (e.g., Dolan, Peasgood, and White 2008). Income is a positive predictor of well-being, while being unemployed is a large negative predictor. Years of education is a small positive predictor in Model 2 but becomes negative, though trivial in size, in Model 3, suggesting that social capital may mediate education’s influence on subjective well-being. Middle-aged respondents are less happy than younger and older respondents. Being married and having a child at home predict higher and lower subjective well-being, respectively. Perceived experience with discrimination on the basis of race, nationality, religion, language, or ethnicity predicts substantially lower subjective well-being, while higher self-rated health is a considerably large predictor of subjective well-being. Respondents who report higher levels of trust in institutions are happier than respondents who express low levels of trust in institutions. Finally, residence in an urban area predicts slightly lower subjective well-being.

Auxiliary Analyses

In addition to our main analyses, we conducted two sets of auxiliary analyses to investigate additional important questions regarding social capital’s role in the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being. First, as noted previously, some research has suggested that there may be differential returns to social capital (Portes 1998; Hao and Johnson 2000; Lin 2000; de Vroome and Hooghe 2014). Therefore, in separate analyses, we examined interactions between immigrant status and each measure of social capital. We found no evidence that social capital is either more or less beneficial for immigrants in comparison to non-immigrants (results available on request).

Second, the social capital measures available in Waves 1 through 5 of the ESS pertain to informal social ties and generalized trust. Formal social connections are also an important aspect of social capital (Pichler and Wallace 2007). While a valid measure of formal social capital is unavailable in Waves 2 through 5, Wave 1 provides a measure of formal social capital by querying respondents about their involvement in 12 types of voluntary associations.²¹ Therefore, we conducted additional analyses that examined whether formal social capital accounts for a part of the immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being. Although these results indicate that immigrants have lower levels of formal social capital, formal social capital is not a positive predictor of subjective well-being when all the other social capital variables are included in the analysis. Accordingly, our analysis suggests that formal social capital does not contribute to the native/immigrant gap in subjective well-being (results available on request).

Conclusion

Immigration is often motivated by a desire to increase well-being, and a good deal of previous research has sought to understand the predictors of immigrant economic well-being (e.g., Hao 2004; Akresh 2008; Hall and Farkas 2008; Lancee 2012; Tegegne 2015). By comparison, the effects of migration on immigrants’ overall well-being and other determinants of their quality of life are less understood. More recently, however, a growing body of work has sought to identify the sources of immigrants’ subjective well-being (e.g., Amit 2010; Safi 2010; Bartram 2011; Hendriks 2015; Hendriks and Bartram 2016). We know from this literature that on average, immigrants do not achieve levels of well-being that are commensurate with natives. Furthermore, a gap in subjective well-being remains after accounting for socioeconomic circumstances (Safi 2010; Hendriks 2015) and sometimes even when a particular group of immigrants achieves higher socioeconomic standing than natives (Hendriks 2015). Understanding the sources of this gap is essential for societies interested in achieving the full integration of immigrants as it has implications for immigrants’ long-term commitment to life in the host country and contributes to alleviating social inequalities and preventing social conflicts in immigrant-receiving countries.

We suggest that the role of social capital in this gap has been understudied. Using data from 15 European countries, we find that in comparison to native-born populations, immigrants have deficits in many forms of social capital when models are adjusted for common covariates of social capital, though the deficits are generally larger for non-Western immigrants. Furthermore, we find that deficits in informal social capital and generalized trust account for much of the native-immigrant gap that remains after controlling for socioeconomic status and other standard predictors of subjective well-being. For non-Western immigrants, informal social capital and trust account for about 60 percent of the native-immigrant gap, whereas these forms of social capital statistically explain away the gap for Western immigrants. In auxiliary analyses, we find that formal social capital does not appear to contribute to the gap in subjective well-being. While our results also suggest that non-Western immigrants have higher levels of social capital that stem from religious involvement, we find that it is not enough to meaningfully reduce the immigrant-native gap in well-being. Finally, despite compelling substantive reasons that the returns to various forms of social capital for well-being may differ across immigrant and native groups, we find that the returns are equivalent for immigrants and natives, a result that is in line with de Vroome and Hooghe (2014), who conclude that social resources do not have differential returns for immigrants and natives in the Netherlands.

Of course, our study has several limitations that are important to note. First, while we utilize multiple waves of the ESS because each wave surveyed different respondents, the same limitation of cross-sectional data to make causal inferences on social capital’s role in contributing to subjective well-being applies here. There is some research based on longitudinal and experimental data that observes social capital’s causal role in subjective well-being (McIntyre et al. 1991; Diener and Seligman 2004; Baker et al. 2005). However, it remains difficult to definitively conclude causality with regard to social capital’s role in the immigrant-native gap in well-being. For example, it could be that immigrants are less happy than non-immigrants, leading to lower levels of social capital, rather than vice versa. The data’s cross-sectional nature also does not allow us to compare immigrants’ pre-migration and post-migration subjective well-being. Therefore, we do not know for certain the extent to which immigrant-native gaps in social capital and well-being could be causally attributed to the migration process. However, given the plethora of research that highlights migration’s enormous social costs to immigrants (e.g., Evergeti and Zontini 2006; Weishaar 2008), the causal path we have proposed here seems likely. That is, migration is costly in terms of immigrants’ social capital, which is at least partly responsible for the immigrant-native gap in well-being. Of course, it would be even more informative to assess how these relationships unfold over time with longitudinal data.

Second, while the ESS has several advantages for assessing our research questions, the measures of social capital also have some limitations. One measure of informal socializing combines time with family, friends, and coworkers, making it impossible to assess how each one uniquely predicts subjective well-being, which previous research suggests may have differential effects (Martin and Westerhof 2003). In addition, ideal measures for assessing social capital’s role in the well-being gap would include additional measures of social networks. Such measures would assess network characteristics and resources more directly and provide a better picture of immigrant-native differences in social capital. In particular, future research in this area should measure the ethnic composition of respondents’ networks. Doing so would allow us to address questions about bridging and bonding social capital and better adjudicate between competing mechanisms through which social capital might influence immigrant well-being.²² Indeed, additional social capital measures could be key to explaining the remaining gap between non-Western immigrants and natives.

Third, we have taken a broad approach by comparing immigrants across all Western European countries surveyed in the first five waves of the ESS to their native-born counterparts. The immigrant-native gap in subjective well-being, however, may be highly contingent on the contexts of both sending and receiving nations (Hendriks 2015). While our study highlights differences between Western and non-Western immigrants in comparison to their native-born counterparts, there is more to be learned about how the country of origin impacts the degree to which social capital explains the gap in subjective well-being. We also find that the predicted effect of non-Western immigrant status varies by country of destination, but an examination of why this effect varies by destination is beyond our study’s scope. Hence, our approach of looking at average differences across countries obscures the potentially important role of the contexts of destination countries in the immigrant subjective well-being gap and potentially how social capital is related to this gap. For instance, de Vroome and Hooghe (2014) find that economic and social resources fully account for the Turkish and Moroccan immigrant-native gap in the Netherlands. Thus, while our results suggest that a significant, though small gap remains for non-Western immigrants after including a host of social capital variables, it could be that social capital accounts for more and less of the gap across different contexts or destination countries. We thus view this research as a first step in assessing social capital’s role in the immigrant-native well-being gap. Now that we have further evidence that an important difference exists between non-Western and Western immigrants in their relative social capital disadvantages and that social capital accounts for a gap in subjective well-being that remains after standard controls, future research could study the role of context, in particular the significance of destination country, in social capital inequalities and the degree to which it contributes to the gap in well-being.

Despite these limitations, this paper makes an important contribution to scholarship on immigrant subjective well-being. Our results suggest that social capital plays an important role in the immigrant-native gap in well-being. In addition, our research has implications beyond the immigrant-native gap in well-being. Particularly, it illuminates an important pathway through which well-being disparities between social groups may be produced and maintained. Future research should examine social capital’s role in subjective well-being gaps for other disadvantaged groups as well.

Footnotes

Appendix

Descriptive Statistics, N =127,687.

	Mean	SD	Minimum	Maximum
Subjective well-being	7.33	1.82	0	10
Non-Western immigrant	0.05	0.22	0	1
Western immigrant	0.03	0.16	0	1
Informal socializing	0.00	0.81	–2.72	2.43
Discussion partner	0.92	0.27	0	1
Generalized trust	5.40	1.89	0	10
Financial resources	2.92	1.28	1	5
Religious attendance	1.51	1.51	0	5
Years of education	12.12	4.14	0	21
Middle income	0.31	0.46	0	1
High income	0.28	0.45	0	1
Missing income	0.21	0.40	0	1
Low income (reference)
Unemployed	0.05	0.22	0	1
Age	47.15	18.04	12	99
Female	0.53	0.50	0	1
Married or cohabiting	0.53	0.50	0	1
Child at home	0.37	0.48	0	1
Minority	0.04	0.20	0	1
Perceived discrimination	0.03	0.17	0	1
Institutional trust	5.11	1.96	0	10
Self-rated health	3.91	0.89	1	5
Urban residence	0.33	0.47	0	1

Authors’ Note

The authors contributed equally.

Acknowledgements

We thank Mary Campbell for comments on an earlier version of this manuscript.

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) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

Adler

Kwon

. 2002. “Social Capital: Prospects for a New Concept.” Academy of Management Review 27(1):17–40.

Aknin

L. B.

Barrington-Leigh

C. P.

Dunn

E. W.

Helliwell

J. F.

Burns

Biswas-Diener

Kemeza

Nyende

Ashton-James

C. E.

Norton

M. I.

. 2013. “Prosocial Spending and Well-Being: Cross-Cultural Evidence for a Psychological Universal.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 104(4):635–52.

Akresh

I. R.

2008. “Occupational Trajectories of Legal US Immigrants: Downgrading and Recovery.” Population and Development Review 34(3):435–56.

Alba

Foner

. 2014. “Comparing Immigrant Integration in North America and Western Europe: How Much Do the Grand Narratives Tell Us?” International Migration Review 48(s1):S263–91.

Amit

2010. “Determinants of Life Satisfaction among Immigrants from Western Countries and from the FSU in Israel.” Social Indicators Research 96(3):515–34.

Argyle

2001. The Psychology of Happiness. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge.

Baker

L. A.

Cahalin

L. P.

Gerst

Burr

J. A.

. 2005. “Productive Activities and Subjective Well-Being among Older Adults: The Influence of Number of Activities and Time Commitment.” Social Indicators Research 73(3):431–58.

Bak-Klimek

Karatzias

Elliott

Maclean

. 2015. “The Determinants of Well-Being among International Economic Immigrants: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Analysis.” Applied Research in Quality of Life 10(1):161–88.

Bălţătescu

2007. “Central and Eastern Europeans Migrants’ Subjective Quality of Life. A Comparative Study.” Journal of Identity and Migration Studies 1(2):67–81.

10.

Bankston

C. L.

2014. Immigrant Networks and Social Capital. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.

11.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):1173–82.

12.

Bartram

2011. “Economic Migration and Happiness: Comparing Immigrants’ and Natives’ Happiness Gains from Income.” Social Indicators Research 103(1):57–76.

13.

Baumeister

R. F.

Leary

M. R.

. 1995. “The Need to Belong: Desire for Interpersonal Attachments as a Fundamental Human Motivation.” Psychological Bulletin 117:497–529.

14.

Beaudoin

C. E.

2009. “Bonding and Bridging Neighborliness: An Individual-Level Study in the Context of Health.” Social Science and Medicine 68(12):2129–36.

15.

Behtoui

Neergaard

. 2010. “Social Capital and Wage Disadvantages among Immigrant Workers.” Work, Employment & Society 24(4):761–79.

16.

Bourdieu

1986. “The Forms of Capital.” In Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education, edited by Richarson

, 241–58. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

17.

Boyd

1989. “Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Developments and New Agendas.” The International Migration Review 23(3):638–70.

18.

Cameron

A. C.

Gelbach

J. B.

Miller

D. L.

. 2008. “Bootstrap-Based Improvements for Inference with Clustered Errors.” Review of Economics and Statistics 90(3):414–27.

19.

Cohen

Pressman

S. D.

. 2006. “Positive Affect and Health.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 15(3):122–25.

20.

Coleman

J. S.

1988. “Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital.” American Journal of Sociology 94(s1):S95–120.

21.

De Neve

J.-E.

Oswald

A. J.

. 2012. “Estimating the Influence of Life Satisfaction and Positive Affect on Later Income Using Sibling Fixed Effects.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109(49):19953–58.

22.

de Vroome

Hooghe

. 2014. “Life Satisfaction among Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands: Immigration Experience or Adverse Living Conditions?” Journal of Happiness Studies 15(6):1389–406.

23.

de Vroome

Hooghe

. 2015. “Explaining the Ethnic Minority Disadvantage in Subjective Well-Being: A Multilevel Analysis of European Countries.” In A New Research Agenda for Improvements in Quality of Life, edited by Maggino

, 87–108. New York: Springer International Publishing.

24.

Diener

Seligman

M. E. P.

. 2004. “Beyond Money: Toward an Economy of Well Being.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 5(1):1–29.

25.

Diener

Suh

E. M.

Lucas

R. E.

Smith

H. L.

. 1999. “Subjective Well-Being: Three Decades of Progress.” Psychological Bulletin 125:276–302.

26.

Dinesen

P. T.

2012. “Does Generalized (Dis)Trust Travel? Examining the Impact of Cultural Heritage and Destination-Country Environment on Trust of Immigrants.” Political Psychology 33(4):495–511.

27.

Dinesen

P. T.

Hooghe

. 2010. “When in Rome, Do as the Romans Do: The Acculturation of Generalized Trust among Immigrants in Western Europe.” International Migration Review 44(3):697–727.

28.

Dolan

Peasgood

White

. 2008. “Do We Really Know What Makes Us Happy? A Review of the Economic Literature on the Factors Associated with Subjective Well-Being.” Journal of Economic Psychology 29(1):94–122.

29.

Ellison

C. G.

George

L. K.

. 1994. “Religious Involvement, Social Ties, and Social Support in a Southeastern Community.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 33(1):46–61.

30.

Evergeti

Zontini

. 2006. “Introduction: Some Critical Reflections on Social Capital, Migration and Transnational Families.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 29(6):1025–39.

31.

Faist

2009. “Diversity — A New Mode of Incorporation?” Ethnic and Racial Studies 32(1):171–90.

32.

Glanville

J. L.

Bienenstock

E. J.

. 2009. “A Typology for Understanding the Connections among Different Forms of Social Capital.” American Behavioral Scientist 52(11):1507–30.

33.

Glanville

J. L.

Story

W. T.

2018. “Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: Clarifying the Role of Trust.” Social Science Research 71:98–108.

34.

Granovetter

M. S.

1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology 78(6):1360–80.

35.

Grob

2000. “Perceived Control and Subjective Well-Being across Nations and across the Life Span.” In Culture and Subjective Well-Being, edited by Diener

Suh

E. M.

, 319–39. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

36.

Hall

Farkas

. 2008. “Does Human Capital Raise Earnings for Immigrants in the Low-Skill Labor Market?” Demography 45:619–39.

37.

Hao

L. X.

2004. “Wealth of Immigrant and Native-Born Americans.” International Migration Review 38:518–46.

38.

Hao

L. X

Johnson

R. W.

. 2000. “Economic, Cultural, and Social Origins of Emotional Well-Being Comparisons of Immigrants and Natives at Midlife.” Research on Aging 22(6):599–629.

39.

Helliwell

J. F.

Putnam

R. D.

. 2004. “The Social Context of Well-Being.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences 359(1449):1435–46.

40.

Hendriks

2015. “The Happiness of International Migrants: A Review of Research Findings.” Migration Studies 3(3):343–69.

41.

Hendriks

Bartram

. 2016. “Macro-Conditions and Immigrants’ Happiness: Is Moving to a Wealthy Country All That Matters?” Social Science Research 56:90–107.

42.

Hendriks

Ludwigs

Veenhoven

. 2016. “Why Are Locals Happier Than Internal Migrants? The Role of Daily Life.” Social Indicators Research 125(2):481–508.

43.

Kim

Subramanian

S. V.

Kawachi

. 2006. “Bonding Versus Bridging Social Capital and Their Associations with Self Rated Health: A Multilevel Analysis of 40 US Communities.” Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 60(2):116–22.

44.

Kóczán

2016. “(Why) Are Immigrants Unhappy.” IZA Journal of Migration 5(3).

45.

Lancee

. 2010. “The Economic Returns of Immigrants’ Bonding and Bridging Social Capital: The Case of the Netherlands.” International Migration Review 44(1):202–26.

46.

Lancee

. 2012. “The Economic Returns of Bonding and Bridging Social Capital for Immigrant Men in Germany.” Ethnic and Racial Studies 35(4):664–83.

47.

Lim

Putnam

R. D.

. 2010. “Religion, Social Networks, and Life Satisfaction.” American Sociological Review 75(6):914–33.

48.

Lin

. 2000. “Inequality in Social Capital.” Contemporary Sociology 29(6):785–95.

49.

Lin

. 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

50.

Martin

Westerhof

G. J.

. 2003. “Do You Need to Have Them or Should You Believe You Have Them? Resources, Their Appraisal, and Well-Being in Adulthood.” Journal of Adult Development 10(2):99–112.

51.

Martinović

2013. “The Inter-Ethnic Contacts of Immigrants and Natives in the Netherlands: A Two-Sided Perspective.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 39(1):69–85.

52.

Martinovic

Van Tubergen

Maas

. 2009. “Dynamics of Interethnic Contact: A Panel Study of Immigrants in the Netherlands.” European Sociological Review 25(3):303–18.

53.

McIntyre

C. W.

Watson

Clark

L. A.

Cross

S. A.

. 1991. “The Effect of Induced Social Interaction on Positive and Negative Affect.” Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 29(1):67–70.

54.

McPherson

Smith-Lovin

Cook

J. M.

. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology 27:415–44.

55.

Murayama

Nofuji

Matsuo

Nishi

Taniguchi

Fujiwara

Shinkai

. 2015. “Are Neighborhood Bonding and Bridging Social Capital Protective against Depressive Mood in Old Age? A Multilevel Analysis in Japan.” Social Science & Medicine 124:171–79.

56.

Myers

D. G.

1999. “Close Relationships and Quality of Life.” In Well-Being: The Foundations of Hedonic Psychology, edited by Kahneman

Diener

Schwartz

, 374–91. New York: Russell Sage.

57.

Neto

2001. “Satisfaction with Life among Adolescents from Immigrant Families in Portugal.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 30(1):53–67.

58.

Oswald

A. J.

Proto

Sgroi

. 2015. “Happiness and Productivity.” Journal of Labor Economics 33(4):789–822.

59.

Paternoster

Brame

Mazerolle

Piquero

. 1998. “Using the Correct Statistical Test for the Equality of Regression Coefficients.” Criminology 36(4):859–66.

60.

Paxton

1999. “Is Social Capital Declining in the United States? A Multiple Indicator Assessment.” American Journal of Sociology 105(1):88–127.

61.

Pearlin

L. I.

Menaghan

E. G.

Lieberman

M. A.

Mullan

J. T.

. 1981. “The Stress Process.” Journal of Health and Social Behavior 22(4):337–56.

62.

Pichler

2006. “Subjective Quality of Life of Young Europeans. Feeling Happy but Who Knows Why?” Social Indicators Research 75(3):419–44.

63.

Pichler

Wallace

. 2007. “Patterns of Formal and Informal Social Capital in Europe.” European Sociological Review 23(4):423–35.

64.

Portela

Neira

del Mar Salinas-Jimenez

. 2013. “Social Capital and Subjective Wellbeing in Europe: A New Approach on Social Capital.” Social Indicators Research 114(2):493–511.

65.

Portes

1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 24(1):1–24.

66.

Portes

Landolt

. 1996. “The Downside of Social Capital.” The American Prospect 16:18–21.

67.

Portes

Sensenbrenner

. 1993. “Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action.” American Journal of Sociology 98(6):1320–50.

68.

Putnam

R. D.

2000. Bowling Alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.

69.

Röder

Mühlau

. 2012. “Low Expectations or Different Evaluations: What Explains Immigrants’ High Levels of Trust in Host-Country Institutions?” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(5):777–92.

70.

Rotter

J. B.

1971. “Generalized Expectancies for Interpersonal Trust.” American Psychologist 26(5):443–52.

71.

Safi

2010. “Immigrants’ Life Satisfaction in Europe: Between Assimilation and Discrimination.” European Sociological Review 26(2):159–76.

72.

Schlueter

2012. “The Inter-Ethnic Friendships of Immigrants with Host-Society Members: Revisiting the Role of Ethnic Residential Segregation.” Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 38(1):77–91.

73.

Siedlecki

K. L.

Salthouse

T. A.

Oishi

Jeswani

. 2014. “The Relationship between Social Support and Subjective Well-Being across Age.” Social Indicators Research 117(2):561–76.

74.

Szreter

Woolcock

. 2004. “Health by Association? Social Capital, Social Theory, and the Political Economy of Public Health.” International Journal of Epidemiology 33(4):650–67.

75.

Tegegne

M. A.

2015. “Immigrants’ Social Capital and Labor Market Performance: The Effect of Social Ties on Earnings and Occupational Prestige.” Social Science Quarterly 96(5):1396–410.

76.

Van Tubergen

Sindradóttir

J. Í.

. 2011. “The Religiosity of Immigrants in Europe: A Cross-National Study.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 50(2):272–88.

77.

Uslaner

E. M.

2008. “Where You Stand Depends upon Where Your Grandparents Sat: The Inheritability of Generalized Trust.” Public Opinion Quarterly 72(4):725–40.

78.

Vega

Kolody

Valle

. 1987. “Migration and Mental Health: An Empirical Test of Depression Risk Factors among Immigrant Mexican Women.” International Migration 21(3):512–30.

79.

Weishaar

H. B.

2008. “Consequences of International Migration: A Qualitative Study on Stress among Polish Migrant Workers in Scotland.” Public Health 122(11):1250–56.

80.

Wellman

Wortley

. 1990. “Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support.” American Journal of Sociology 96(3):558–88.

81.

Yamagishi

. 1994. “Trust and Commitment in the United States and Japan.” Motivation and Emotion 18(2):129–66.