Gender and stress-buffering of social capital toward depression among precarious workers in South Korea

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Precarious work is featured with disadvantaged job conditions such as to employment contract, job description, and occupational environment, and has been recognized as an emerging social risk for mental health. Social capital deserves further attention, believed to buffer stress produced by precarious employment. Yet, recent evidence suggests that the mental health benefits of social capital vary by gender, as gender norms that oblige women to assume a caregiving burden may nullify the benefits of a richer social capital.

OBJECTIVE:

Our study focused on two types of social capital, bonding and bridging, testing their stress-buffering effects, as focusing on the posited gender-moderated effects of social capital.

METHODS:

We analyzed 333 precarious workers in South Korea. Chi-square tests and t-tests are used to compare socio-demographic factors, depressive symptoms, and daily stressors by gender. Multiple regression analyses were used to test significance of an interaction term between daily stress and sub-domains of social capital by gender.

RESULTS:

Male workers with higher bonding and higher bridging social capital reported lower depressive symptoms. Yet, female workers gained no direct benefit from higher bonding social capital and those with higher bridging social capital reported even higher depressive symptoms when their daily stress was lower.

CONCLUSIONS:

Our findings support the notion that social capital is not universally beneficial and female precarious workers lacking resources seem to suffer despite increased social participation.

Keywords

Social network daily stress mental health

1 Introduction

Following a global financial crisis in 1997, precarious employment has been increasing in South Korea and in other South East Asian countries. This type of work often features a variety of discriminatory rules for employees with regard to employment contract (e.g., temporary status), job description (e.g., affective labor), and job environment (e.g., lacking union membership) [1 –3]. Compared to traditional job contracts, precarious workers lack pension benefit, bonuses, trainings, stability, or tenure, and they typically earn less money for working the same number of hours [4]. In South Korea, 54.8% and 64.6% of precarious workers were not covered by public pension or unemployment insurance, while only 1.4% and 2.6% of permanent workers were under the same situations [5]. It is not easy to identify whether precarious employment precedes lower socioeconomic status (SES) or vice versa because those two factors often coincide and result in heightened vulnerabilities among low-income families [4]. However, existing evidence show significant relationships between those two factors. Indeed, nearly 45% of precarious workers in South Korea are workers with low-wage, who earn less than two thirds of the median wage [5]. Also, 13.2% of temporary workers saw themselves as poor, yet only 3.3% of permanent workers gave the same answer [5].

Precarious workers experience increased occupational stress and worse mental health [6, 7]. A study with a representative sample of people living in South Korea discovered that 13.6% of precarious workers reported being depressed, which was almost double the rate found among employees with a full-time job [6]. A similar gap was observed when suicidal ideation was assessed [6]. Studies uncovered frequent abusive management practices and adverse working conditions for precarious workers. Additionally, increased occupational stress was a significant predictor of worse self-rated health and poorer mental health, including depression [7 –12]. One known mechanism by which precarious employment is associated with a higher risk of depression is job insecurity. For instance, employees lacking job security were more likely to have clinical depression [13]. Also, poor mental health can be attributed to longer working hours resulted by lower hourly wage that many precarious workers should endure [14]. Studies also demonstrated non-occupational stressors that impact mental health among low-income employees with precarious jobs, such as family conflicts, particularly with kids, role strains derived from work-family balance, and financial strains [15, 16]. It is possible that precarious employment’s negative effect on mental health could be confounded by other risk factors associated with being hired to a precarious position (e.g., lower education or gender). When the propensity score matching was used, there was a notably increased risk of depression even after ruling out relevant confounding factors [11].

When seeking to mitigate the risk of depression among precarious workers, social capital is a factor deserving attention. Social capital is embedded in social networks and used by individuals to access to better opportunities and resources [17]. The term social capital was coined from observations that many people leverage their social connections to meet their needs, in the same way that people use financial capital or human capital for the sake of their needs. Since Putnam [18] made this concept popular in public discourse, social capital has been used to explain varying mental and health outcomes [19 –22]. Despite varying definitions of social capital [21 –23], two types, bonding social capital and bridging social capital, have been widely used to study the associations between social capital and mental health [22 –24]. Bonding social capital deals with the scope, quality, and content of social interactions. As a result, bonding social capital conceptually overlaps with social support [23], which has been studied for its associations with depressive symptoms [25]. Bridging social capital focuses on the extent of participation in a group where individuals are offered opportunities to build weak social ties [23].

Both bonding social capital and bridging social capital may alleviate the negative effects of daily stress on mental health. Yet the underlying mechanisms by which psychological stress is buffered appear distinct between these two types of social capital [26 –28]. In theories, bonding social capital will help individuals mobilize emotional and material support from families and friends with whom they maintain a good relationship, so that those individuals will cope with stressful situation. This stress-buffering function is similar to the way that social support alleviates the negative effects of stressful events on mental health [26 –28]. Bridging social capital has somewhat different functions compared to the bonding social capital. Bridging social capital provide a gateway to resources or information which might not be accessible because of spatial and social distance with social ties seen a part of bridging social capital [29]. Granovetter [29] presented a good example for ways to leverage bridging social capital when seeking employment opportunities by conceiving “strength of weak ties” theory. Precarious workers will find limited opportunities and resources unless they have sufficient bridging social capital, which would be very instrumental in addressing stressors, such as unemployment [29]. In addition, participating in a social group, a part of bridging social capital, will provide a sense of belongingness, protect mental health under stressful conditions, offer potential role models from the group who previously coped with the same stressful event, and help join a peer support group dedicated to a common illness-related stressor, such as severe mental illness [28]. These benefits of social capital for mental health were empirically observed in various populations [30 –32], including in South Korea [5]. Systematic review studies conducted in 2005 and 2015 found that individual-level social capital, both bonding and bridging, was associated with a lower risk of psychological disorders, including depression [22, 23]. One Finnish study focused on the role of social capital within workplaces found an increased risk of depression associated with lower workplace social capital [34].

Despite promising evidence for the stress-buffering effect of social capital, more analysis is needed to fully understand the effects. The benefit of social capital may not provide equal benefit, and some groups may even struggle due to the intensity of their social connections [27]. For instance, low-income women may not find adequate resources from social connections when seeking social support to cope with stressors because of socially patterned disadvantages which this very particular group often encounters [27]. They could be more psychologically deprived by role-related strain derived from gendered obligations, which imply women should help families and friends under crisis. Therefore, contrary to the prevailing belief, higher score to a measure of social capital can be translated into increased psychological burdens and possibly higher depressive symptoms. Early studies identified gender as a moderating factor in associations between social factors and health outcomes [35, 36]. Gender-modified effects of social capital seems possible if we see a few studies which discovered empirical findings that women with lower SES either didn’t gain benefit or actually were worse off when they responded to have higher social capital [30 , 38]. A 26-year prospective cohort study in Sweden found that men reported significantly lower depressive symptoms associated with increased civic engagement, yet this effect was not identified among women [37]. Another study focusing on people living in Russia, where a gender norm, such as women should be a caregiver, are more strongly accepted, found that women with higher social capital did not have better self-reported health [31].

Our study examined whether bonding social capital and bridging social capital are associated with depressive symptoms among precarious workers in South Korea. To examine the stress-buffering effect, we looked at the moderating effect of an interaction between daily stress and those two forms of social capital [26]. We also considered whether gender is a factor that moderates the strength of associations between social capital and depressive symptoms.

2 Methods

2.1 Study population

The study participants were 333 precarious workers in Seoul and Kyeong-gi province, one of the largest metropolitan areas in South Korea. We defined precarious workers in accordance with the Korean Labor Institute, which included contingent and part-time workers, dispatched workers indirectly employed through temporary work agencies, temporary help agency workers, independent contractors, on-call and daily workers, teleworkers and home-based workers [3].

We used purposive sampling to recruit participants for the study. In the first stage, we sent requests for participation to individuals in charge of a university, a district office, a company in the service industry, and three apartment buildings. After we received permission from these agencies, we visited potential participants and confirmed whether they were precarious workers and if they were willing to participate. We explained the purpose of the research and that it was confidential, then distributed questionnaires to precarious workers who had agreed to participate in the self-administered survey. Participants completed anonymous self-administered structured surveys and received $5 gift cards as compensation. Research Support Team at Daejin University, previous university of the author (S. P.), and the program officer of the sponsoring foundation reviewed and approved the plan for human subject protection. A total of 333 questionnaires were collected in May, 2012, and used in the final analysis.

2.2 Measurement

Daily stress was composed of 12 items selected out of the hassles that workers may experience. This measurement was used to assess everyday sources of stress and annoyance, which consists of legal difficulties, health problems, alcohol abuse, family conflict/health problems, financial hardship, stress, child care, elder or other family care, work hassles, absenteeism/lateness, and commute transportation. Each item was rated on a 4-point Likert scale from 1 (not serious at all) to 4 (very serious). The reliability of the measure in this study was high (α= 0.89).

We assessed depressive symptoms using 15 items from the subscale of the HSCL-25 [39]. The HSCL-25 is composed of items assessing anxiety (10 items) and depression (15 items), and is a short version of the Symptom Check List-90. We only used the 15 items specifically measuring depressive symptoms. This measure has been widely used across different cultural domains and ethnic groups [40 –43]. The HSCL-25 accurately distinguished respondents with clinical depressive symptoms when compared with structured interviews conducted by experienced clinicians [40]. There were four response options available: 1 = not at all, 2 = a little, 3 = quite a bit, and 4 = extremely. The mean of these 15 items was used to indicate depressive symptoms. A higher score on the HSCL-25 represented more depressive symptoms. Internal consistency was high for this measure (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.93).

To measure social capital, we used the Personal Social Capital Scale (PSCS) that consisted of 42 questions measuring bonding social capital and bridging social capital [44]. A study discovered Cronbach’s alpha level 0.87 of Social Capital (Social Boding Capital 0.85, Social Bridging Capital 0.84) when studying a sample of participants from major cities in China [44]. Confirmatory factor analysis presented the theoretically hypothesized factor structure, and scores of total capital, bonding capital, and bridging capital dimension were correlated with other constructs posited to relate to social capital (e.g., social support) [44]. Bonding social capital was measured by four subdomains, with each subdomain consisting of four items which elicited perceptions about quality, content, size, and closeness of social relationships and those social ties’ social status (e.g., influence to local decision making). Each item was rated on a Likert scale with 1 = a few, 2 = less than average, 3 = average, 4 = more than average, and 5 = a lot. Bridging social capital was assessed by twelve items distributed into five subdomains. Those items measured the extent to which respondents engage in any governmental, political, economic, social, cultural, recreational, or leisure groups and organizations in their community. It also asked whether respondents receive assistance from those groups and organizations when needed. Each item was rated on a Likert scale with 1 = a few, 2 = less than average, 3 = average, 4 = more than average, and 5 = a lot. Because South Korea was historically and culturally influenced by Confucian norms and belief, which is also prevailing in modern China, this personal networks tool developed in Chinese culture seemed to better reflect nuances of social connections and relationships compared to measures of social capital developed by scholars residing in Western culture (e.g., [45]). The internal consistency of bonding social capital was 0.95 and that of bridging social capital was also 0.95.

We identified demographic or socioeconomic factors that might confound association between social capital and depressive symptoms based on previous studies [3, 7] and ≤29, 30–39, 40–49, 50–59,≥60), education (less than high school, high school graduate, more than high school), marital status (single, married or cohabitating, separated), self-reported economic status (lowest-low middle class vs. middle class or higher), and self-reported health (very unhealthy, a little unhealthy, fair, healthy, very healthy).

2.3 Analyses

We conducted a series of chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables to compare socio-demographic factors, depressive symptoms, and daily stressors by gender. We conducted multiple regression analyses with an interaction term between daily stress and one of sub-domains of social capital with the whole sample (n = 333), a male-only sample (n = 185), and a female-only sample (n = 148). Because of the high correlation between bonding social capital and bridging social capital, we ran separate statistical analyses to avoid multi-collinearity. The analyses controlled for age, education, marital status, self-reported income, self-reported health, and gender. The rejection level for a significance test was 0.05. Analyses were conducted using SPSS 21.0 (Chicago, IL, USA).

3 Results

Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics of sociodemographic variables among the total sample. Among the total sample, 44.5% were women, 72.6% had at least a high school diploma, and 60.1% were married or co-habiting. Almost three-fourths of respondents perceived that their economic conditions fell between the lowest and low-middle levels, and about 30% chose either very unhealthy or a little unhealthy when asked to indicate their overall health. The mean age of the total sample was 46.62 years old. The means for depressive symptoms, daily stressors, bonding social capital, and bridging social capital were 1.68, 6.77, 3.24, and 1.93, respectively. According to chi-square tests for categorical variables and independent t-tests for continuous variables, the results in Table 1 indicated that there were significant differences by gender in socio-demographic characteristics such as education, marital status, age, and depressive symptoms. Specifically, females were likely to have less education (p = 0.000), be married or co-habiting (p = 0.000), and be depressed (p < 0.01).

Table 1
Demographic and clinical characteristics of participating precarious workers by gender (N = 333)

All Male Female P Value

N = 333 N = 185 N = 148

(55.56%) (44.44%)

N (%) N (%) N (%)

Mean±SD^a Mean±SD^a Mean±SD^a

Female (ref: male) 148 (44.44%)

Education 0.000

Less than high school 91 (27.3%) 31 (16.8%) 60 (40.5%)

High school graduate 151 (45.3%) 93 (50.3%) 58 (39.2%)

More than high school 91 (27.3%) 61 (33.0%) 30 (20.3%)

Marital status 0.000

Single 89 (26.7%) 69 (37.3%) 20 (13.5%)

Married or cohabited 200 (60.1%) 101 (54.6%) 99 (66.9%)

Separated 44 (13.2%) 15 (8.1%) 29 (19.6%)

Self-reported economy 0.214

Lowest-low middle class (ref: at least middle class) 243 (73.0%) 140 (75.7%) 103 (69.6%)

Self-reported health 0.544

Very unhealthy –a little unhealthy 98 (29.4%) 59 (31.9%) 39 (26.4%)

Fair 88 (26.0%) 47 (25.4%) 41 (27.7%)

Healthy –very healthy 147 (44.1%) 79 (42.7%) 68 (45.9%)

Age 46.62±13.42 43.81±13.77 50.14±12.11 0.000

Depressive symptoms (range: 1–4) 1.68±0.54 1.61±0.52 1.77±0.56 0.007

Daily stressor (range: 1–12) 6.77±5.70 6.74±5.88 6.81±5.47 0.904

Bonding social capital 3.24±0.85 3.00±0.73 3.08±0.70 0.325

Bridging social capital 1.93±0.81 1.98±0.88 1.87±0.73 0.220

	All	Male	Female	P Value
	N (%)	N (%)	N (%)
	Mean±SD^a	Mean±SD^a	Mean±SD^a
Female (ref: male)	148 (44.44%)
Education				0.000
Less than high school	91 (27.3%)	31 (16.8%)	60 (40.5%)
High school graduate	151 (45.3%)	93 (50.3%)	58 (39.2%)
More than high school	91 (27.3%)	61 (33.0%)	30 (20.3%)
Marital status				0.000
Single	89 (26.7%)	69 (37.3%)	20 (13.5%)
Married or cohabited	200 (60.1%)	101 (54.6%)	99 (66.9%)
Separated	44 (13.2%)	15 (8.1%)	29 (19.6%)
Self-reported economy				0.214
Lowest-low middle class (ref: at least middle class)	243 (73.0%)	140 (75.7%)	103 (69.6%)
Self-reported health				0.544
Very unhealthy –a little unhealthy	98 (29.4%)	59 (31.9%)	39 (26.4%)
Fair	88 (26.0%)	47 (25.4%)	41 (27.7%)
Healthy –very healthy	147 (44.1%)	79 (42.7%)	68 (45.9%)
Age	46.62±13.42	43.81±13.77	50.14±12.11	0.000
Depressive symptoms (range: 1–4)	1.68±0.54	1.61±0.52	1.77±0.56	0.007
Daily stressor (range: 1–12)	6.77±5.70	6.74±5.88	6.81±5.47	0.904
Bonding social capital	3.24±0.85	3.00±0.73	3.08±0.70	0.325
Bridging social capital	1.93±0.81	1.98±0.88	1.87±0.73	0.220

^aStandard deviation.

Table 2 shows the findings from the analyses that examined the direct effects and the stress-buffering effects of bonding social capital on depressive symptoms. Among the total participants (n = 333), those with higher daily stress (p < 0.001) and lower bonding social capital (p < 0.05) reported higher depressive symptoms when the interaction term between daily stress and bonding social capital was not examined. When the interaction term was added, the direct effect of bonding social capital became nullified (p > 0.05). When male precarious workers were examined (n = 185), bonding social capital was significantly associated with depressive symptoms (p < 0.05) in the model without the interaction term, suggesting that males with higher bonding social capital reported lower depressive symptoms. Again, the significant direct effect of bonding social capital became nullified when the interaction term was added to the statistical model (p > 0.05). When female respondents were examined (n = 148), no significant associations were observed (p > 0.05).

Table 2

Interaction effects of daily stressors and bonding social capital upon depressive symptoms focusing on the gender of participants (N = 333)

	All (n = 333)		Male (n = 185)		Female (n = 148)
		Unstandardized Coefficient (SE)
Constant	1.264 (0.152)^***	1.191 (0.168)^***	1.404 (0.201)^***	1.275 (0.220)^***	1.188 (0.235)^***	1.115 (0.260)^***
Age	0.001 (0.002)	0.001 (0.002)	0.002 (0.003)	0.002 (0.003)	–0.001 (0.004)	–0.001 (0.004)
Less than high school ^a	–0.012 (0.054)	–0.014 (0.054)	0.068 (0.088)	0.070 (0.087)	0.011 (0.076)	0.011 (0.076)
More than high school^a	–0.106 (0.045)^*	–0.104 (0.046)^*	–0.110 (0.055)^*	–0.098 (0.055)	–0.049 (0.082)	–0.058 (0.083)
Single^b	–0.007 (0.058)	–0.010 (0.058)	–0.012 (0.069)	–0.023 (0.069)	0.000 (0.105)	0.006 (0.105)
Separated^b	–0.021 (0.060)	–0.032 (0.061)	–0.132 (0.103)	–0.167 (0.105)	0.041 (0.077)	0.036 (0.077)
Self-reported income: low^c	0.031 (0.044)	0.034 (0.044)	0.018 (0.058)	0.026 (0.058)	0.077 (0.070)	0.076 (0.070)
Self-reported health: unhealthy^d	0.246 (0.047)^***	0.244 (0.047)^***	0.262 (0.062)^***	0.260 (0.062)^***	0.190 (0.077)^*	0.189 (0.077)^*
Self-reported health: fair^d	0.135 (0.047)^**	0.138 (0.047)^**	0.191 (0.061)^**	0.198 (0.061)^**	0.087 (0.073)	0.090 (0.074)
Female^e	0.160 (0.039)^***	0.162 (0.039)^***
Daily stress	0.060 (0.004)^***	0.070 (0.010)^***	0.050 (0.005)^***	0.065 (0.012)^***	0.074 (0.006)^***	0.084 (0.017)^***
Bonding social capital	–0.060 (0.029)^*	–0.036 (0.037)	–0.103 (0.038)^**	–0.061 (0.048)	0.003 (0.046)	0.029 (0.060)
Daily stress X Bonding social capital		–0.004 (0.003)		–0.006 (0.004)		–0.004 (0.006)
R²	0.639	0.640	0.639	0.643	0.659	0.660

Note: ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001; ^aReference group: high school deploma; ^bReference group: married and cohabiting; ^cReference group: Middle class and above; ^dReference group: healthy; ^eReference group: male.

Table 3 reports the findings regarding the interaction effects of daily stressors and bridging social capital on depressive symptoms. Among the total respondents (n = 333), the interaction term was significant because higher social capital mitigated the effect of daily stress on depressive symptoms. Among male participants (n = 185), those with higher bridging social capital reported significantly lower depressive symptoms (p < 0.05) in a model that did not include the interaction term. When the interaction term was added to the model, the direct effect was not significant (p > 0.05). When female workers were examined (n = 148), bridging social capital was significantly associated with depressive symptoms, suggesting that those with higher social capital reported higher depressive symptoms, on average. A significant interaction term (p < 0.05) suggests that female workers with higher social capital showed weaker strength of association between daily stressors and depressive symptoms.

Table 3

Interaction effects of daily stressors and bridging social capital upon depressive symptoms

	All (n = 333)		Male (n = 185)		Female (n = 148)
		Unstandardized Coefficient (SE)
Constant	1.131 (0.124)^***	1.035 (0.129)^***	1.157 (0.149)^***	1.074 (0.155)^***	1.119 (0.207)^***	.946 (0.215)^***
Age	0.001 (0.002)	0.000 (0.002)	0.002 (0.003)	0.002 (0.003)	–0.001 (0.004)	–0.002 (0.004)
Less than high school ^a	–0.013 (0.054)	–0.020 (0.053)	0.072 (0.088)	0.079 (0.087)	0.003 (0.076)	–0.007 (0.075)
Above than high school^a	–0.100 (0.046)^*	–0.107 (0.046)^*	–0.094 (0.056)	–0.102 (0.056)	–0.055 (0.082)	–0.067 (0.080)
Single^b	–0.003 (0.058)	–0.020 (0.058)	0.010 (0.069)	–0.018 (0.071)	–0.003 (0.104)	0.014 (0.103)
Separated^b	–0.010 (0.060)	–0.024 (0.060)	–0.094 (0.102)	–0.139 (0.104)	0.037 (0.076)	0.048 (0.075)
Self-reported income: low^c	0.033 (0.044)	0.038 (0.044)	0.024 (0.058)	0.029 (0.058)	0.095 (0.071)	0.099 (0.070)
Self-reported health: unhealthy^d	0.249 (0.047)^***	0.226 (0.048)^***	0.276 (0.062)^***	0.248 (0.063)^***	0.193 (0.077)^*	0.171 (0.076)^*
Self-reported health: fair^d	0.138 (0.047)^**	0.128 (0.047)^**	0.199 (0.061)^**	0.188 (0.061)^*	0.094 (0.073)	0.087 (0.072)
Female^e	0.151 (0.039)^***	0.149 (0.039)^***
Daily stress	0.063 (0.004)^***	0.080 (0.008)^***	0.053 (0.005)^***	0.068 (0.010)^***	0.074 (0.006)^***	0.102 (0.012)^***
Bridging social capital	–0.037 (0.024)	0.027 (0.035)	–0.072 (0.028)^*	–0.011 (0.044)	0.038 (0.041)	0.138 (0.057)^*
Daily stress X Bridging social capital		–0.009 (0.004)^*		–0.009 (0.005)		–0.015 (0.006)^*
R²	0.637	0.644	0.637	0.643	0.661	0.676

Note: ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001; Note: ^*p < 0.05; ^**p < 0.01; ^***p < 0.001; ^aReference group: high school deploma; ^bReference group: married and cohabiting; ^cReference group: Middle class and above; ^dReference group: healthy; ^eReference group: male.

Figure 1 reveals interesting patterns of associations driven by direct and interaction effects. Among total participants, those with low bonding social capital had higher depressive symptoms than other groups with mid-level and high bonding social capital. The benefits of bridging social capital manifested when precarious workers had higher stress. Among male

Fig. 1

Relationship between daily stress and depressive symptoms depending on three level of social capital- the average -1SD, the average, and the average + 1SD, among all (n = 333), males (n = 185), and females (n = 148).

precarious workers, the gap in depressive symptoms was amplified between groups depending on their levels of bonding social capital. When bridging social capital and daily stress were higher, the benefit of social capital was largest. Analysis of the female-only sample showed an unexpected absence of the benefit from bonding social capital on depressive symptoms. In regards to bridging social capital, when female precarious workers had lower daily stress, those with high social capital showed even worse depressive symptoms compared with groups with mid-level and low social capital.

4 Discussion

Gender-modified associations between social capital and depressive symptoms in regard to the direct effect and interactive effect worth further studies. When bonding social capital was higher, male precarious workers demonstrated lower depressive symptoms, on average. However, female precarious workers presented comparable depressive symptoms regardless of their bonding social capital. According to the statistical model, which examined both the direct effect and the interaction effect of bridging social capital, male workers did not show significant associations and female workers with higher social capital presented increased depressive symptoms even when they reported lower daily stressors. Similar findings were also observed in a study conducted in Russia, where gender norms are relatively powerful [31]. This study also did not show significant associations between social capital and mental health among women, although men with higher social capital demonstrated better mental health [31]. In contrast to the expectation that social capital would mitigate the risk of depression and poor mental health [18 , 46], our findings offer a nuanced picture depicting an association between social capital and depressive symptoms for precarious workers living in South Korea. Contrary to the popular perception that social capital is a potential solution for a variety of social ills [18], our findings support more cautious perspective on the role of social capital in mental health proposed previously [27]. Rather than social capital being a significant predictor of mental health and depression [22], social capital appears to buffer stress only if social context allows those individuals to seek social support from social connections. Our findings bolster the proposition that more social connections will tax women lacking resources derived from their lower SES because those women will be burdened by meeting gender norm to serve others to whom they are connected [27].

These findings might be explained by added burden for women in an organization or social relationship. Women are often perceived as a caregiver rather than a recipient of care. Studies have found that gendered institutions, gender-specific norms, and stereotypical sex roles are observed even among high-status female professionals in a workplace. Female professionals expressed a need to be a good citizen of an organization by showing their adherence to unconscious or conscious gender roles [47 –49]. Feminist theorists have argued that gendered institutions create different roles for men and women, and women are often mandated to provide care to needy people and serve invisible functions deemed the mother’s work [50 –52]. For instance, a study found congregations led by a female clergy allocated more resources and time to provide social services than those led by a male clergy. This finding implies a stronger expectation toward female clergy to help people in need [49]. Within churches, women in their 40 s and 50 s are asked to participate in “women’s works,” such as preparing meals for lunch after Sunday service [53]. In a society where such a strong gender norm exists, women reporting higher social capital may also serve the needs of a group or an association, dissipating the stress-buffering effect of social capital, yet empirical studies need to assess this argument.

Participating in a group for a purpose other than personal interest may be another reason for women to lose the benefits of a richer bridging social capital. As opposed to men joining a voluntary group because they are interested in the activities that the group provides to its members, women with caregiving responsibilities (e.g., married women in their 40 s) are often asked to join such a voluntary group or association on behalf of their family members. It is well known that mothers are asked more than fathers to join parent-teacher associations or soccer clubs on behalf of their children [54]. Spending time in a group that women are not personally interested in may not offer resources for them to buffer psychological stress, which is a primary mechanism by which social capital predicts lower depressive symptoms. A similar finding was observed in Sweden, where women who increased their social participation during mid-life reported even lower self-rated health. The authors argued that those women were obliged to add another role for the sake of other family members [30].

We also believe that a loss of the effects of social capital can be explained by the lack of resources and opportunities among precarious workers. Living in a low-income community and embedded in social networks whose members also lack the resources to cope with daily stress may subdue the benefits of social capital. Adding to the challenges associated with being a precarious worker in South Korea [5 , 12], many respondents seemed to have lower SES. For example, 73% of the sample rated their social class as either lowest or lower-middle class. Individuals with lower SES may not find the necessary resources and appropriate emotional support if they are embedded in social networks whose members are also deprived of resources and opportunities [55]. We recommend further studies need to focus on uncovering which function of social capital is actually beneficial for mental health of precarious workers who are dealing with enormous life challenges. Social capital is posited to buffer stress via various psychosocial mechanisms, including seeking role models can be mirrored in coping with similar stressor; find meaning from common life challenges experienced by peers; acquiring self-esteem through mingling and emotional support; gaining a sense of control by mobilizing needed helps; feeling a sense of belonging and companionship even under stressful circumstances; and perceiving that support is available at any time [28]. Rather than assessing associations between a score collected with a social capital measurement [45] and depressive symptoms, it would be more helpful to understand roles of social capital if those independent functions above are measured in a quantitative manner.

This study carries a number of limitations. First, due to cross-sectional data, we were unable to determine causality between social capital and depressive symptoms. Second, this study used convenience sampling that limits the generalizability of the findings to a population of workers with precarious employment. Also, this study used data collected seven years ago, which could create risk that our findings may not adequately present the contemporary notion of women’s roles in South Korea. Finally, the proportion of females in our sample was lower than that in governmental statistics [3].

5 Conclusion

Our findings suggest that the benefits of social capital vary depending on gender and type of social capital among workers under precarious job conditions in South Korea. Our findings suggest that theories explaining relationships between social capital and depressive symptoms should carefully consider how social contexts and social norms may modify the roles of social networks when it comes to the stress-buffering effects of social capital.

Conflict of interest

None to report.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2019S1A5C2A02082650).

References

Arnold

, Bongiovi

, Precarious, Informalizing, and Flexible Work Transforming Concepts and Understandings. American Behavioral Scientist. 2013;57(3):289–308.

Scott-Marshall

, Tompa

. The health consequences of precarious employment experiences. Work. 2011;38(4):369–82.

Sung

, Jung

. Korean Labor Institute nonragular worker labor statistics. Seoul, South Korea: Korean Labor Institute. 2011 (In Korean).

Shin

. Economic crisis, neoliberal reforms, and the rise of precarious work in South Korea. American Behavioral Scientist. 2013;57(3):335–53.

Kim

, Chung

, Perry

, Kawachi

, Subramanian

. Association between interpersonal trust, reciprocity, and depression in South Korea: A Prospective analysis. Plos One. 2012;7(1):e30602.

Han

, Chang

, Won

, Lee

M-S

, Ham

B-J

. Precarious employment associated with depressive symptoms and suicidal ideation in adult wage workers. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2017;218:201–9.

Jang

, Jang

, Bae

, Shin

, Park

. Precarious employment and new-onset severe depressive symptoms: A population-based prospective study in South Korea. Scandinavian Journal of Work, Environment Health. 2015;41:329–37.

Bosmans

, Hardonk

, De Cuyper

, Vanroelen

. Explaining the relation between precarious employment and mental well-being. A qualitative study among temporary agency workers. Work. 2016;53(2):249–64.

Noh

, Sohn

. The effect of social exclusion of marginal workers on mental health. Korean Journal of Social Welfare. 2011;63(1):113–35 (In Korean).

10.

Park

, Rhee

, Barak

. Job stress and mental health among nonregular workers in Korea: What dimensions of job stress are associated with mental health? Archives of Environmental & Occupational Health. 2016;71(2):111–8.

11.

Quesnel-Vallée

, DeHaney

, Ciampi

. Temporary work and depressive symptoms: A propensity score analysis. Social Science & Medicine. 2010;70(12):1982–7.

12.

Yoo

, Park

, Jang

, Kwon

, Kim

, Cho

, et al. Association between employment status change and depression in Korean adults. BMJ Open. 2016;6(3):e008570–e.

13.

Cho

, Kim

, Chang

, Fiedler

, Koh

, Crabtree

, et al. Occupational stress and depression in Korean employees. International Archives of Occupational and Environmental Health. 2008;82(1):47–57.

14.

Härmä

. Are long workhours a health risk? Scandinavian Journal of Work. Environment Health. 2003;9(3):167–169.

15.

Conger

, Conger

, Martin

. Socioeconomic status, family processes, and individual development. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2010;72(3):685–704.

16.

, Ell

, Subica

. Depression and family interaction among low-income, predominantly hispanic cancer patients: a longitudinal analysis. Supportive Care in Cancer. 2014;22(2):427–34.

17.

Portes

. Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology. 1998;24(1):1–24.

18.

Putnam

. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. 2001.

19.

, Jeong

. Korean immigrants don’t buy health insurance: The influences of culture on self-employed Korean immigrants focusing on structure and functions of social networks. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;191:194–201.

20.

Muckenhuber

, Dorner

, Burkert

, Groschädl

, Freidl

. Low social capital as a predictor for the risk of obesity. Health & Social Work. 2015;40(2):e51–e8.

21.

Almedom

. Social capital and mental health: An interdisciplinary review of primary evidence. Social Science & Medicine. 2005;61(5):943–64.

22.

Ehsan

, De Silva

. Social capital and common mental disorder: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2015;69(10):1021–8.

23.

Ferlander

. The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociologica. 2007;50(2):115–28.

24.

McKenzie

, Whitley

, Weich

. Social capital and mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 2002;181(4):280–3.

25.

Cohen

, Underwood

, Gottlieb

. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 2000.

26.

Cohen

, Wills

. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin. 1985;98(2):310.

27.

Kawachi

, Berkman

. Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health. 2001;78(3):458–67.

28.

Thoits

. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2011;52(2):145–61.

29.

Granovetter

. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology. 1973;78(6):1360–80.

30.

Eriksson

, Ng

. Changes in access to structural social capital and its influence on self-rated health over time for middle-aged men and women: A longitudinal study from northern Sweden. Social Science & Medicine. 2015;130:250–8.

31.

Ferlander

, Makinen

. Social capital, gender and self-rated health: Evidence from the Moscow Health Survey Social Science & Medicine. 2009;69(9):1323–32.

32.

Phongsavan

, Chey

, Bauman

, Brooks

, Silove

. Social capital, socio-economic status and psychological distress among Australian adults. Social Science & Medicine. 2006;63(10):2546–61.

33.

De Silva

, McKenzie

, Harpham

, Huttly

SRA

. Social capital and mental illness: a systematic review. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 2005;59(8):619–27.

34.

Kouvonen

, Oksanen

, Vahtera

, Stafford

, Wilkinson

, Schneider

, et al. Low workplace social capital as a predictor of depression: the Finnish Public Sector Study. 2008;167(10):1143–51.

35.

Shumaker

, Hill

. Gender differences in social support and physical health. Health Psychology. 1991;10(2):102.

36.

Umberson

. Gender, marital status and the social control of health behavior. Social Science & Medicine. 1992;34(8):907–17.

37.

Landstedt

, Almquist

, Eriksson

, Hammarstrom

. Disentangling the directions of associations between structural social capital and mental health: Longitudinal analyses of gender, civic engagement and depressive symptoms. Social Science & Medicine. 2016;163:135–43.

38.

Silvey

, Elmhirst

. Engendering social capital: Women workers and rural–urban networks in Indonesia’s crisis. World Development. 2003;31(5):865–79.

39.

Derogatis

, Lipman

, Rickels

, Uhlenhuth

, Covi

. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist (HSCL): A self-report symptom inventory. Behavioral Science. 1974;19(1):1–15.

40.

Fröjdh

, Håkansson

, Karlsson

. The Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 is a sensitive case-finder of clinically important depressive states in elderly people in primary care. International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry. 2004;19(4):386–90.

41.

Hesbacher

, Rickels

, Morris

, Newman

, Rosenfeld

. Psychiatric illness in family practice. The Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. 1980;41(1):6–10.

42.

Ventevogel

, De Vries

, Scholte

, Shinwari

, Faiz

, Nassery

, et al. Properties of the Hopkins Symptom Checklist-25 (HSCL-25) and the Self-Reporting Questionnaire (SRQ-20) as screening instruments used in primary care in Afghanistan. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2007;42(4):328–35.

43.

Winokur

, Winokur

, Rickels

, Cox

. Symptoms of emotional distress in a family planning service: stability over a four-week period. The British Journal of Psychiatry. 1984;144(4):395–9.

44.

Chen

, Stanton

, Gong

, Fang

, Li

. Personal Social Capital Scale: an instrument for health and behavioral research. Health Education Research. 2009;24(2):306–17.

45.

Cohen

, Doyle

, Skoner

, Rabin

, Gwaltney

. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. Journal of American Medical Association. 1997;277(24):1940–4.

46.

Henderson

, Whiteford

. Social capital and mental health. Lancet. 2003;362:505–6.

47.

Berkovitch

, Waldman

, Yanay

. The politics of (in)visibility: On the blind spots of women’s discrimination in the academy. Culture and Organization. 2012;18(3):251–75.

48.

Reimann

, Alfermann

. Female Doctors in Conflict: How Gendering Processes in German Hospitals Influence Female Physicians’ Careers. Gender Issues. 2018;35(1):52–70.

49.

Stewart-Thomas

. Gendered congregations, gendered service: The impact of clergy gender on congregational social service participation. Gender Work and Organization. 2010;17(4):406–32.

50.

Acker

. From sex roles to gendered institutions. Contemporary Sociology. 1992;21(5):565–9.

51.

Adkins

. Social capital: the anatomy of a troubled concept. Feminist Theory. 2005;6(2):195–211.

52.

Risman

. Gender as a social structure: Theory wrestling with activism. Gender & Society. 2004;18(4):429–50.

53.

Yeom

. Why we are talking for gender equality within a church? Journal of Korean Feminist Theology. 2009;69:36–55.

54.

Lowndes

. Women and social capital: a comment on Hall’s ‘Social capital in Britain’. British Journal of Political Science. 2000;30(3):533–7.

55.

Cattell

. Poor people, poor places, and poor health: the mediating role of social networks and social capital. Social Science & Medicine. 2001;52(10):1501–16.