Macro-Level Causes and Effects of Social Cohesion

Social Infrastructure and the Alleviation of Loneliness in Europe

“…This is supported by recent work that has highlighted that technological development appears to strengthen social cohesion (Dragolov et al. 2016 ).…”

“…While internet usage has been often referred to as weakening ties between individuals, country-level evidence shows that highly developed internet infrastructure and communication technology are associated with high social cohesion (Dragolov et al. 2016 ). Moreover, it is also important who is using the internet.…”

Ethnic bias, economic success and trust

“…One of the main findings from this research is that the tendency to differentiate between those identified as belonging to the same group (the so-called "in-group") at the expense of others identified as belonging to another group (the so-called "out-group") is endemic (Balliet, Wu and De Dreu, 2014[10]; Lane, 2016 [11]). Such an in-group bias has been found in experiments conducted with groups differing for their nationality (Yamagishi et al, 2005[12]; Guillen and Ji, 2011 [13]; Akai and Netzer, 2012 [14]; Whitt and Wilson, 2007[15]; Romano et al, 2017[16]; Dorrough and Glöckner, 2016 [17]), ethnicity (Fershtman and Gneezy, 2001[18]; Fershtman, Gneezy and Verboven, 2005 [19]; Bernhard, Fischbacher and Fehr, 2006[20]; Simpson, McGrimmon and Irwin, 2007[21]; Habyarimana et al, 2007[22]; Ahmed, 2010[23]; Burns, 2012 [24]; Tanaka and Camerer, 2016 [25]; Zhang, Zhang and Putterman, 2019 [26]), religious affiliation (Chuah, Fahoum and Hoffmann, 2013[27]; Chuah et al, 2014[28]), castes ( (Fehr, Hoff and Kshetramade, 2008 [29]; Hoff, Kshetramade and Fehr, 2011 [30]), political affiliation (Rand et al, 2009[31]; Weisel and Böhm, 2015 [32]), associations, communities, or army units within a country (Goette, Huffman and Meier, 2006 [33]; Ruffle and Sosis, 2006[34]; Degli Antoni and Grimalda, 2016 [35]) and also when groups differ for purely arbitrary characteristics induced in the laboratory (Tajfel et al, 1971[8]; Charness, Rigotti and Rustichini, 2007 [36]; Chen and Li, 2009 [37]; Güth, Ploner and Regner, 2009 [38]; Heap and Zizzo, 2009[39]). Evidence of in-group bias is widespread even outside the laboratory (Bertrand, Mullainathan and Shafir, 2004[40]; Tjaden, Schwemmer and Khadjavi, 2018 [41]; Adida, Laitin and Valfort, 2010[42]).…”

“…To quantify the relative importance of statistical and taste-based discrimination, we control for the amount that the first mover expects to receive from each type of second mover at the end of the TG. 17 Table 3 shows regressions for the whole dataset (Germany and the United States combined) in columns 1 and 2, US only in columns 3 and 4 and Germany only in the last two columns. For all groups the return expectation is a strongly significant predictor of the transfer to the second mover, thus confirming that first movers' transfers depend on the second movers' expected trustworthiness.…”

Social Cohesion: Definitions, Causes and Consequences

“…Indeed, statistical investigations support the contention from Schiefer and van der Noll [14] that inequality, or related measures such as wealth, are causally related to social cohesion. Though these studies show the connection between absolute wealth and social cohesion is tenuous [33,50], the role of inequality is much more well-supported. Indeed, a body of work supports the argument that inequality negatively affects social cohesion [51][52][53][54][55][56].…”