Does Your Body Know Who You Know? Multiple Roles of Network Members’ Socioeconomic Status for Body Weight Ratings

Abstract

Combining the theory of social capital with work on three social factors, respectively, socioeconomic status (SES), gender, and lifestyle, this study examines four roles of accessed SES (network members’ SES) for body weight ratings: direct association, indirect association through lifestyle, mediating role in the relationship between SES and body weight ratings, and interaction with gender. Analyzing data from the 2004 U.S. General Social Survey, this study measures body weight ratings (visually evaluated by interviewers) and two indicators of accessed SES on the educational dimension (network members’ average education and proportion of network members with some college education or more). The results show evidence not for the direct role of accessed education but rather for its three other roles. More educated adults of both genders have access to more educated network members; those with more educated network members have a stronger athletic identity (a proximate indicator of lifestyle); and those with a more solid athletic identity have lower body weight ratings. Also, men with more educated network members have higher body weight ratings, but the opposite pattern applies to women. This study refines social capital theory and advances our understanding of network, socioeconomic, lifestyle, and gender disparities in body weight.

The double-edged role of accessed status on health and well-being among middle- and older-age adults in rural South Africa: The HAALSI study

“…Prior studies suggested that socializing with higher status individuals can be detrimental for psychological well-being given the excessive networking demands and socio-emotional stress regarding upward self-evaluation ( Moore et al, 2009 ; Lee & Kawachi, 2017 ; Song, 2014 ; 2020 ). From a gender perspective, having many high-status contacts may especially damage men's esteem and threaten their subjective social status, given the patriarchal norm associated with wealth and power in close relationships, especially for older men in rural South African communities ( Morrell et al, 2012 ; see also, Song et al, 2017 ). In addition, as the majority of our respondents' reported ties are kin, this context-specific personal network structure may indicate the increased caring obligations for “strong ties,” particularly for (extended) families affected by HIV ( Manderson & Block, 2016 ; Madhavan et al, 2017 ).…”

“…Recent evidence has also found potentially harmful implications of accessed status on health, given the cost and expenses of generating and maintaining social relationships ( Song et al, 2021 ). Prior researchers have tested the two competing theories in different cultural contexts, to show how they might vary across different population subgroups – including by education, employment, and gender ( Lee & Kawachi, 2017 ; Moore, Daniel, Paquet, et al, 2009 ; Song, 2014 ; Song et al, 2017 ; Song, 2020 ; Song & Pettis, 2020 ). However, little is known about the dual functions of accessed status on health by varying personal network structure and social support patterns.…”

Social Capital, Social Cost, and Relational Culture in Three Societies

“…Seven studies took both social capital theory and some parts of social cost theory into consideration, and all of them focused on health-related outcomes. Four of them are single-society studies (Lee and Kawachi 2017; Moore, Daniel, Gauvin, and Dubé 2009; Song 2015a; Song, Pettis, and Piya 2017). The other three are comparative cross-society studies (Song 2014a, 2015b; Song and Pettis 2020).…”

“…The other three are comparative cross-society studies (Song 2014a(Song , 2015bSong and Pettis 2020). Among the four single-society studies, two of them supported social cost theory (Lee and Kawachi 2017;Song 2015b), and three of them found that the explanatory power of social capital theory versus social cost theory varied by gender and education (Lee and Kawachi 2017;Song et al 2017). The three comparative studies reported that the explanatory power of social capital and social cost theories varied by culture and society (Song 2014a(Song , 2015bSong and Pettis 2020).…”

Is having an educationally diverse social network good for health?

“…A substantial majority of studies of network diversity and health status/behavior have operationalized the concept of role diversity (Barefoot et al, 2005;Cornwell & Laumann, 2015;Ellwardt et al, 2015;Escobar-Bravo et al, 2012;Kelly et al, 2014;Legh-Jones & Moore, 2012;Molesworth et al, 2015;Moore et al, 2014;Rice et al, 2012;Song et al, 2017;Viruell-Fuentes et al, 2013;Zhang et al, 2012). This concept is often measured using a form of a network position generator (Lin & Dumin, 1986) that seeks to enumerate characteristics of an individual's ties to a set of alters with different social roles (e.g., as family members, church members, friends, and neighbors).…”