Blog

Social & Cultural Capital, Part 1: How to Benefit from Each in the Workplace

Posted on by Leave a comment

Your success on the job often relies on the type of capital you possess. 

We’ve been discussing social and cultural capital over the past few weeks, and these two types of capital are what matter at work. 

To review, social capital is all about the strength of relationships and connections within a group, whereas cultural capital is the shared values and goals that bring a group together.

Social capital can help you achieve more or reach objectives more easily at work. 

In this post, we’ll take a closer look at social capital and see how to assess and build upon it.

Assessing Your Social Capital

Maybe you don’t even know where you stand with your social capital.

After all, it’s not exactly something tangible that you can measure.

The following questions might help you identify where you’re at with your social capital:

  • Do I carry influence? What is my reputation like? Do others see me as strong or weak, reliable or flakey, positive or negative? Do they want to work with me?
  • How strong are my relationships within my team and without? Do I build connections with others across departments? Do I network?
  • Do I build strategic and enduring relationships or just transactional ones?
  • Do I have the energy and influence to mobilize resources and colleagues to support and achieve my goals? 
  • Do I keep abreast of important news and developments within my workplace and industry?

Improving your social capital can enhance your job performance, satisfaction, and career prospects. 

To do so, networking with peers and colleagues in your industry, cultivating relationships based on mutual interests and values, and offering help and support to others are paramount to banking more social capital. 

Aggregate Benefits

Not only does social capital improve individual success and potential, but the entire workplace improves.

Successful workplaces cultivate social structures in which everyone benefits.

This happens through social intercourse, empathy, fellowship, compassion, consideration, and most importantly, trust.

If the social structure benefits only a small group within the workplace, the organization’s aggregate benefits from their social capital decrease.

It feeds into a negative company culture, in which trust is lost, along with the sense of community.

When none of these things are there, those in the social structure can’t rely on each other and cooperation and society collapses.

If you look at your workplace and you cannot identify its values, then that’s a problem.

It means you’ll have a hard time personally building social capital there…as will the workplace, itself.

Building your cultural capital, which relates to your knowledge, skills, and understanding of cultural norms and practices, is also important for career success.

We’ll talk more about that next week.

Does Individualism Corrode Social Capital? Find Out Here

Posted on by Leave a comment

Would you require more social capital and cultural capital to succeed in an individualist country? Or less?

Do you think the individualist system or the collectivist system is more conducive to social cohesion?

There is a debate among theorists about whether individualism poses a threat to a society’s cohesion and communal association or whether it aids the development of social solidarity and cooperation. 

Some argue that the growth of individuality, autonomy, and self-sufficiency is essential for a healthy society, while others argue that excessive individualism undermines social ties and leads to a breakdown of community.

This study by Anu Realo and Jüri Allik suggests the opposite is true. 

Let’s take a look.

Individualism-Collectivism & Social Capital

Social capital and individualism-collectivism (IC) are two important constructs that have been studied extensively in the social sciences. 

As we outlined in a previous post, social capital refers to the networks, norms, and trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation among individuals and groups.

We’ve also extensively discussed IC – the degree to which people prioritize their own goals and interests versus those of the group.

Despite the seemingly contradictory nature of individualism and social ties, research on the relationship between social capital and IC suggests that there is a positive association between the two constructs. 

Individualism & Trust

Countries with higher levels of social capital are more individualistic, which suggests that independence and freedom to pursue one’s personal goals are of value to social capital. 

This is because social capital is based on trust, and trust is more likely to form in societies that value individual autonomy and self-determination.

Those societies in which trust is limited to only nuclear family or kinship have lower levels of social capital. 

Social capital is not evenly distributed within societies and can vary depending on the size of social networks and the degree of trust within them.

Social Capital Not at Odds with Individualism

To put it simply, social capital and individualism are not necessarily at odds. 

Instead, promoting social capital through policies that strengthen relationships and trust – such as investments in education, infrastructure, and community development – can help to build stronger communities, even in societies that value individual autonomy.

Cultural Capital: How Does Your Culture Benefit You

Posted on by Leave a comment

Imagine you are interviewing two candidates for a job.

They are equally qualified for the job, have the same work experience, and were both compelling in their interviews.

But one went to Harvard, is proficient in three languages, and was dressed in the finest clothes.

The other went to a state school, had no language proficiency, and was dressed well enough but his clothing was not quality.

Even though neither language proficiency nor wardrobe matters for this job, who would you be more likely to choose for the role?

Last week, we talked about social capital – i.e. networking amongst similar groups of people, either of the same social status, across socioeconomic groups, or through shared characteristics.

Similarly, cultural capital can either help an individual succeed in society…or if you have none, it can sometimes stand in the way of success.

Let’s take a closer look at what cultural capital is and how it works.

Cultural Capital

Cultural capital is often defined as “the social assets of a person.”

It refers to the cultural knowledge, skills, and experiences that a person possesses, which can be exploited to gain social status and power. 

Think one’s education, language proficiency or speech patterns, artistic or musical abilities, dress, mannerisms, knowledge of literature, history, and social norms.

All of these characteristics are part of a person’s cultural capital, and they can provide opportunities for some that wouldn’t be open to others.

History of the Concept

The concept of cultural capital was developed by French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, who argued that cultural capital can be used to reproduce social inequality. 

In his view, those who possess cultural capital are more likely to succeed in society because they are better equipped to navigate social situations and gain access to valuable resources such as education, jobs, and social connections.

In fact, Bordieu believed:

“cultural inheritance and personal biography attribute to individual success more than intelligence or talent.” 

Cultural capital can be acquired through formal education or through exposure to various cultural experiences throughout one’s life…or it can be convincingly faked, as con artists like Anna “Delvey” Sorokin have demonstrated.

Sorokin famously conned her way into high society New York, stealing upwards of $200,000 from the friends she made and from banks.

How?

She knew the value of cultural capital, and she played the part well by convincing her social circle of her style, tastes, and intellect.

Next week, we’ll talk more about how cultural and social capital work together in different cultures around the world.

3 Different Types of Social Capital: Bridging, Bonding, & Linking

Posted on by Leave a comment

Networking.

That’s what everyone advises you to do in order to advance your career.

Why?

Because it brings you social capital. It allows you to build interpersonal relationships, trust, and ultimately (you hope) reciprocity.

But when we’re talking in terms of society at large, what is “social capital”?

Stick with this post, and you’ll learn the general term along with three different types of social capital.

Social Capital, Defined

Oxford Languages defines social capital as:

“the networks of relationships among people who live and work in a particular society, enabling that society to function effectively.”

Social capital is the net gain of human interaction and can be either tangible or intangible.

The outcome might include job opportunities (as described above via networking), favors, or new ideas.

When a group shares values or resources, they can work more effectively together toward a joint mission.

Three Types of Social Capital

There are three different types of social capital: bonding, bridging, and linking.

Bonding Social Capital – this social capital occurs between groups of people or individuals with shared characteristics – like age, hobbies, politics, etc.

This strongest type of social capital develops into close relationships based on shared bonds. Friends, family members, neighbors, church members – all of these groups may result in bonding social capital. These strong connections lead to helping between the individuals or groups, as one is more likely to go the extra mile for someone they know well and feel bonded with. 

For example, who are you more likely to help move? A friend or a stranger? Even a friend of a friend is pushing it.

Bridging Social Capital – this social capital occurs horizontally between socioeconomic groups of the same level. The “bridge” in this instance is a person or acquaintance that might connect two groups or individuals.

For example, Snoop Dogg was asked to appear as a guest on Martha Stewart’s show in 2008. Though they share a similar level of celebrity socioeconomic status, the pair likely would never have met had an intermediary not “bridged” their initial contact. They became fast friends and remain so to this day. 

Linking Social Capital– this social capital occurs vertically between varied socioeconomic groups. The “communities” of similar socioeconomic groups – or individuals in said groups – reach across socioeconomic barriers to build relationships and leverage resources. For example, a pop star may get involved in a music club in an underprivileged community.

Reaching across ‘social boundaries’ through linking benefits both parties, as new contacts and ties are developed. For instance, the CEO of a large company may be introduced to lower-level staff and, in getting to know them, they may better understand their day-to-day and develop more effective work practices. The lower-level staff may also make connections upward, providing them a vertical bridge.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be exploring social capital and how it develops and differs across cultures.

Country Mouse vs. City Mouse: Who is More Giving?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Politicians always harp on about “small-town values,” but what do they actually mean?

Personally, when I think about “small-town values,” a sense of community comes to mind – everyone knowing everyone, and with that, a generosity of spirit.

But does that mean city-dwellers aren’t as giving as small-town folk?

Over the past few weeks, we’ve talked a lot about prosocial behavior, including financial giving and volunteering help.

Historically speaking, small-town folk have long been thought to be more helpful from an evolutionary perspective due to kin selection and reciprocity – both direct and indirect – as a result of cooperative behavior.

Today, we’ll take a look at some studies that pit city-folk against country-folk to see if a city-culture is as generous as its small-town counterpart.

Altruistic Opportunities

A study by Korte and Kerr contrasts urban and nonurban environments, intending to test the urban incivility hypothesis, which the study characterizes as:

“interaction between strangers is less civil, helpful, and cooperative in an urban environment than in a nonurban environment.”

The study used a field experiment – 116 field situations, in fact – in Boston and in a number of small towns in Massachusetts, using three dependent measures.

These measures were requests for assistance for:

a) “lost” postcards, b) overpayments to store clerks, and c) a wrong-number phone call.

In each of these cases, those in small towns were more likely to help than in the city of Boston.

So, yes, small-town folk were found to be more helpful in this particular situations…

But does that cross cultures?

Turkish City vs. Small Town

A similar study by Korte and Ayvalioglu was conducted across 456 towns, cities, and urban squatter settlements (also thought of as “urban villages”) in Turkey.

This field experiment also studied helpfulness in three dependent measures:

a) response to a small accident, b) willingness to do an interview, and 3) willingness to give change.

Helpfulness levels were found lowest in cities and of equal measure in towns and squatter settlements.

Do these two studies suggest city dwellers are generally and universally less helpful than those living in small towns?

While we’d need a broader scope, it appears to be trending that way.

And this may be due to the size of the population, resulting in less trust and intimate human connection in the city culture versus small town culture.

‘Simpatia’ and Spontaneous Helping: What Values Contribute to a Culture of Volunteering?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you find time to volunteer?

For what reason?

Is it something personally important to you? Or is it something that your culture values?

We’ve been talking about prosocial behavior in culture over the last couple of weeks, including donating money.

This week, we’ll look at what values might contribute to a culture of volunteering.

Spontaneous Helping

When you think of volunteering, you probably think of giving your time and energy regularly to an organization – working at a food bank, helping your church bake sale, participating in big brother/sister, etc.

But there are different forms of volunteering.

One form – spontaneous helping – was the focus of a study on cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.

Research was conducted in big cities – New York, Shanghai, Rio de Janeiro, etc. – of 23 countries.

Non-emergency situations were set up, in order to assess how frequently strangers might proactively come to a person’s aid.

These situations included a stranger dropping a pen, a stranger with an injured leg trying to pick up magazines, and a blind person crossing the street.

These three measures resulted in a relatively stable helping rate per city.

But the findings across cities varied greatly.

Brazilians vs. Malaysians

The highest helping rate – 93% – was found in the city of Rio de Janeiro.

This finding is in line with past studies of cultural norms in Spanish and Latin American countries.

Such studies have highlighted the cultural value of “simpatia” in such cultures – i.e. a demonstrated politeness and helpfulness to strangers and a proactive concern for others.

The lowest helping rate – 40% – was found in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

Being that both Brazil and Malaysia are collectivist cultures, this result contradicts the theory that collectivist societies might have a higher helping rate than individualist societies, due to their social orientation.

In reality, the results were all over the map in relation to collectivism vs. individualism and helping, with cities in some collectivist countries averaging higher helping rates – like San Jose, Costa Rica (91.33%) and Lilongwe, Malawi (86%) – while others had low rates – like Singapore (48%) and Sofia, Bulgaria (57%).

Conversely, some individualist cultures were high on the scale – like Vienna (81%) and Copenhagen (77.67%) – while others were low – like New York City (44.67%) and Amsterdam (53.67%).

Economic Productivity

One curious finding was the inverse relationship between helping and the country’s economic productivity.

That is, helping occurred less on the whole in wealthier countries than in poorer ones.

This might suggest that some cultures show more care for each other out of necessity.

Next week, we’ll talk more about different avenues of volunteering and their cultural relevance.

A Universal Truth: Research Confirms That Giving Makes You Feel Good

Posted on by Leave a comment

Prosocial Spending – aka, Charity – is a Psychological Universal

You’re walking down the street, and you see someone holding a sign, asking for help.

Just $20 for gas, $5 for food.

You feel the urge to give. You want to help.

While you might assume generosity and giving is not a universal value, this tug on the heartstrings may be more common than you think.

Prosocial Spending

In the last post, we talked about prosocial behavior – i.e. care given to other people and one’s community.

Prosocial spending – or charity – is one part of prosocial behavior.

It’s defined as using one’s financial resources to help others.

One study of over 600 North Americans showed that those selected at random to spend a small windfall of money on others were significantly happier than those directed to spend it on themselves.

And this happiness derived from generosity was found to be universal.

Research on Prosocial Spending and Well Being shows that those who give have greater well-being, the world over.

When survey data was analyzed across 136 countries using Gallup World Poll data, the study found that humans on a whole derive happiness and other emotional benefits from helping others financially.

As the study reads,

“In contrast to traditional economic thought—which places self-interest as the guiding principle of human motivation—our findings suggest that the reward experienced from helping others may be deeply ingrained in human nature, emerging in diverse cultural and economic contexts.”

Apart from the surveys, the researchers went on to conduct experiments for causality in two widely different countries: Uganda and Canada. 

Here’s what they found.

Uganda vs. Canada: Well-Being and Prosocial Spending

While controlling for household income, donating to charity had a positive effect on life evaluation/well-being across the board.

The study also found that while people in wealthier countries were able to donate at higher rates, the well-being was not greater.

Well-being based on giving monetarily is only weakened in less wealthy nations due to the infrequency of donations.

When investigating Canada (which falls within the top 15% of countries based on per capita income) and Uganda (which falls in the lower 15%), the study found that 66% of respondents in Canada reported donating frequently while only 13% did in Uganda.

However, the experimental study went on to assess prosocial spending in different cultural contexts other than charitable giving.

Approaching students at random on campuses in Uganda and Canada, researchers asked the participants to describe their experience after spending 10,000 Ugandan shillings or 20 Canadian dollars (each of which has equal buying power in these two countries) and also rate their happiness on the Subjective Happiness Scale.

Others were asked to rate self-spending and their corresponding happiness.

As past studies have shown, those who spent on others reported higher levels of happiness than those who spent on themselves.

But what emerged about the cultural differences in spending was interesting.

In Uganda, those who purchased something for themselves described a personal necessity at three times the rate as those in Canada. 

Additionally, Ugandans were more likely to have purchased something for others in response to a negative event, like medical services or supplies, while the same result was not met with at all in Canada.

Despite these differences in spending on others, the emotional benefits were the same in both countries.

Prosocial Behavior: Why Do We Give? Why Do We Care?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do you donate money to charity? Time and energy to volunteering? 

Are you concerned about social issues, like homelessness, racial discrimination, or gender inequality?

If you answered ‘yes’ to any of these questions, then you’re engaging in prosocial behavior.

Over the next few weeks, we’ll be looking at prosocial behavior and culture.

But first, let’s define and understand it.

Origin of the Term, ‘Prosocial Behavior’

The term, ‘prosocial behavior,’ appeared in the ‘70s as an antonym for ‘antisocial behavior.’

It’s defined as demonstrating actions such as cooperation, diplomacy, sharing, helping, feeling empathy, etc.

Basically, prosocial behavior involves caring for other people and your community.

Personal benefits of being a “helper” include boosting one’s mood, reducing stress, and giving your network or community social support.

Reasons for Prosocial Behavior

Aside from the personal benefits of prosocial behaviors, there are other evolutionary and psychological reasons to engage in it. 

  • Reciprocity – Helping others may have evolved from the social norm of reciprocity. When on the receiving end of help, one might feel obliged to help the person in return in their time of need.
  • Socialization – Early child development often includes teachings on kindness, sharing, and helping. These prosocial behaviors may be encouraged as the child grows.
  • Egoism – One might be performatively prosocial, engaging in prosocial behaviors purely to benefit themselves.
  • Survival of the Fittest – Evolution might explain why prosocial behaviors developed. Helping one’s in-group (family, for instance) would ensure survival of your species and/or genetics.

Types of Prosocial Behavior

Researchers have that prosocial behavior can be driven by different motivations.

Here are three distinct types of prosocial behavior:

  • Altruistic – This type of prosocial behavior is not motivated by personal gain. It seeks to help and support others for their sake. Think donating to a cause anonymously.
  • Reactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by individual needs. The individual is acting in response to someone’s specific need. Think supporting a friend when they’re going through a hard time.
  • Proactive – This type of prosocial behavior is motivated by personal gain. The goal of this behavior is to seek status and in-group popularity through “generous” actions. Reciprocity is expected. Think national diplomacy.

With this brief introduction to prosocial behavior, we’ll be discussing how it manifests culturally over the next few weeks in the context of charity and volunteering.

Are You Friendly, Temperamental, or Creative? It May Partly Depend on Where You Live

Posted on by Leave a comment

Is your personality defined by your locale?

It goes without saying that our culture’s values and norms define – or at least influence – each of us.

They determine what is (or should be) important in our lives and, in doing so, drive our motivations.

As this study shows, our culture may even play a role in shaping our personalities.

Big Five Trait Measures

Not only do personality norms differ across national cultures, but they differ across regions within a nation as well.

This study, led by Peter Rentfrow at the University of Cambridge, found three standout regional psychological profiles in the US. 

Researchers took five samples of data through various methods and Big Five trait measures, in a multisample approach taken from different self-reported personality studies collected over 12 years.

Three Psychological Regions in the US

After analyzing responses from more than 1.5 million participants, researchers found three distinct personality types.

  • Cluster 1 – Friendly and Conventional
  • Cluster 2 – Relaxed and Creative
  • Cluster 3 – Temperamental and Uninhibited

The Deep South and Upper Midwest share personality traits identified as “friendly and conventional.”

This is Cluster 1.

Often referred to as “Red” states, this region of Middle America is known for conservative social values and was found to have high levels of Extraversion and low levels of Openness.

Cluster 2, predominantly in the West, is defined as “relaxed and creative.”

The region has a larger population with college degrees, lower levels of Extraversion, and higher levels of Openness.

Other character traits attributed to Cluster 2 are calmness and emotional stability.

Cluster 3, predominantly located in the Northeast, is described as “temperamental and uninhibited.” 

The “Blue” states have low Extraversion and Agreeableness and a high level of Neuroticism.

They also have higher levels of irritability, depression, and stress.

However, they share one personality trait with Cluster 2, in that they’re considered more Open.

The study concludes,

“The psychological profiles were found to cluster geographically and displayed unique patterns of associations with key geographical indicators.”

These psychological clusters may produce the regional variations noted in key indicators such as politics, economics, health, and social attributes.

Selective Migration

While these results may suggest that each region’s culture informs the personality of its residents, selective migration is cited as one possible factor in these regional differences.

This is when someone chooses to move to a locale that complements their needs, personality, and mentality.

For instance, those seeking Openness might settle in (or remain in) a locale known for diversity, while those who are high in Extraversion might settle in (or remain in) a locale where a social network, family, and community are important.

As the study notes, this investigation departs from earlier regional research focusing on voting patterns, economic indicators, cultural stereotypes, etc.

Instead, this study outlines residents’ psychological characteristics, which factor into microlevel PESH metrics via individual-level behaviors.

The Five-Factor Model: Are Gendered Personality Traits Universal?

Posted on by Leave a comment

Do personality traits differ across gender? 

And do those differences translate across cultures?

Last week, we talked about how age differences in personality follow a universal pattern.

But are gendered personality traits also universal?

This study dives in.

NEO Personality Inventory-Revised

A standard questionnaire has been developed according to the Five Factor Model to provide a systematic assessment of the five major domains of personality in relation to motivational, attitudinal, experiential, interpersonal, and emotional styles.

Defining each domain are six traits/facets.

This questionnaire is known as the NEO-PI-R.

For the 2001 study by Costa, Terracciano, and McCrae, this questionnaire was distributed to college-age and adult men and women in 26 countries to collect a sample size.

Results of Cultural Gender Study

As a reminder, the five factors are Neuroticism (N), Extraversion (E), Openness to Experience (O), Agreeableness (A), and Conscientiousness (C).

The data collected showed that men in the U.S. typically scored higher on E and O, particularly in facets of assertiveness and openness.

Women in the U.S. typically scored higher on N and A, but also scored higher on E and O in facets such as openness to aesthetics and warmth.

There was little difference in C between men and women in the U.S.

When compared to other countries, these gender differences appear universal.

Worldwide, men scored higher in the facets of openness to ideas, excitement seeking, assertiveness, and competence, while women scored higher in the facets of openness to aesthetics, straightforwardness, vulnerability, and anxiety.

Does this mean gender differences are biologically based, or are gender differences universally shaped in this way by each and every culture and thus adapted by each personality?

That’s a question waiting to be answered.

Progressive vs. Traditional

Was there a chasm between more progressive cultures and more traditional cultures regarding the magnitude of gender differences in personality traits?

Yes, but not how you’d expect.

You would think that the gap in gender differences in personality would be reduced in modern, progressive cultures and would be greater in traditional cultures.

But the opposite was found.

Modern European countries like The Netherlands saw a broader gap between genders than traditional countries, like South Korea.

One explanation for this may be the way such traits are attributed.

Robert R. McCrae explains,

“In countries where women are expected to be subservient, they attribute their low Assertiveness to their role as a woman rather than their traits. By contrast, European women who are equally low in Assertiveness identify it as a part of their own personality.”

Further studies might take a closer look at this seeming contradiction to get a clearer idea of this gap.

We’ll talk more about personality profiles of cultures next week.