Abstract
The aim of the paper is to assess the construct validation of a multidimensional measure of social cohesion which is well theoretically grounded and has an equivalent/comparable interpretation across all European countries. Up-to-now published research on social cohesion is deficient in either one or both of these important aspects. This paper attempts to cover this gap. The task is accomplished in two steps. In the first step, we conceptualize social cohesion, flowing mainly from Bernard and Chan’s definitions of social cohesion. Based on this theoretical framework we operationalize social cohesion and derive a set of intermediate indicators in the data. By return we verify whether these indicators empirically reflect/corroborate the multidimensional structure of the concept proposed by the theory. In the second step, we examine whether the obtained intermediate indicators of social cohesion form the same constructs across countries and whether they can yield a cross country equivalent measure of social cohesion. To test the validity of the theory we use multidimensional scaling and confirmatory factor analysis. Both models are able to verify the equivalence of the structural results between groups (i.e. countries). Confirmatory factor analysis produces further meaningful measures of these constructs. The analyses are based on the data from the 1999 European Values Study (EVS). The outcomes of the analyses reveal that, firstly, the existence of the multifaceted construct of social cohesion suggested by the theory has been corroborated by empirical analysis of the EVS data (i.e. social cohesion consists of components of formal and substantial relationships and political and socio-cultural domains). Secondly, the proposed constructs measuring social cohesion are equivalent across all analysed countries and thus allow the calculation of internationally comparable national scores of social cohesion. Application of the aggregate measures at the country level will illustrate the interest of the approach for further research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
We use PROXSCAL SPSS procedure.
Negative linear relationship exists between the standardized squared Euclidean distances and Person’s correlation coefficients.
More precisely, case B is represented by three variables (VI01, VI02, VI03 and VI04) and in Fig. 1 is labeled “trust”. Case C is represented by four variables (VI05, VI06, VI07 and VI08) and is called “solidarity”; case D by three variables (VI09, VI10 and VI11) and is named “political participation”; and case E by five variables (VI12, VI13, VI14, VI15 and VI16) and is labelled as “social participation”.
Coefficient of congruence of Tucker = sqrt (1 − σ²) where σ² is the normalized raw stress.
References
Beauvais, C. & Jenson J. (2002). Social cohesion: Updating the state of the research, CPRN Discussion paper, no F/22.
Berger, P. (1998). The limits of social cohesion: conflict and mediation in pluralist societies. Colorado: Westview, Boulder.
Berger-Schmitt, R. (2000). Social cohesion as an aspect of the quality of societies: Concept and measurement. Mannheim: Centre for Survey Research and Methodology (ZUMA) EuReporting Working Paper No.14.
Bernard, P. (1999). La Cohésion sociale: Critique d’un quasi-concept. Lien social et Politiques–RIAC, 41, 47–59.
Borg, I., & Groenen, P. J. (2005). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer.
Cantor, D. E. (1985). Facet theory: Approaches to social research. New York: Springer.
Carroll, J. D., & Chang, J. J. (1970). Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via a N-way generalization of Eckart-Young decomposition. Psychometrika, 35, 238–319.
CERC. (2008). La Cohésion sociale, séminaire 2007, Dossier no3 du CERC, p. 105.
Chan, J., To, H., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75, 273–302.
Coxon, A. P. M. (1982). The user’s guide to multidimensional scaling. London: Heinemann.
Dekker, P., & Van den Broek, A. (2006). Is volunteering going down? In P. Ester, M. Braun, & P. Mohler (Eds.), Globalization, value change, and generations (pp. 179–205). Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Duhaime, G. D., Searles, E., Usher, P. J., Myers, H., & Frechette, P. (2004). Social cohesion and living conditions in the Canadian Arctic: From theory to measurement. Social Indicators’ Research, 66, 295–317.
Durkheim, E. (1893). De la division du travail social. Paris: PUF, coll. « Quadrige ».
Fahey, T., Hayes, B. C., & Sinnott, R. (2006). Conflict and consensus. A study of values and attitudes in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Galland, O. (2002). Les dimensions de la confiance. Futuribles, 277, 15–39.
Gough, I., & Olofsson, G. (Eds.). (2003). Capitalism and social cohesion : Essays on exclusion and integration. New-York: Palgrave.
Green, A., Preston, J. & Sabates, R. (2003). Educational, equity and social cohesion: a distributional model. London: Centre of Research on the wider benefits of learning. Retrieved January, 20, 2009 from http://www.learningbenefits.net/Publications/ResRepIntros/ResRep7intro.htm.
Hagenaars, J., Halman, L., & Moors, G. (2003). Exploring Europe’s basic values map. In W. Arts, J. Hagenaars, & L. Halman (Eds.), The cultural diversity of European unity (pp. 23–58). Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Halman, L., Luijkx, R., & van Zundert, M. (2005). Atlas of European values. Brill: Tilburg University.
Halman, L. & Vloet, A. (1994). Measuring and comparing values in 16 countries of the Western World in 1990 and 1981/WORC (Work and Organization Research Group). Tilburg: Tilburg University.
Helly, D. (2002). Les limites de la notion de cohésion sociale. La Revue de Tocqueville, 23(1), 73–101.
Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of Canadian Research, Canadian Policy Research Networks, CPRN Study, no F/03.
Jöreskog, K. G., & Sörbom, D. (1993). Lisrel 8: Structural equation modelling with the SIMPLIS command language. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Kruskal, J. B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. London: Sage Publications.
Listhaug, O. (1995). The impact of modernization and value change on confidence in institutions. In R. de Moor (Ed.), Values in western societies (pp. 167–177). Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Lockwood, D. (1999). Civic integration and social cohesion. In I. Gough & G. Olofsson (Eds.), Capitalism and social cohesion: Essays on exclusion and integration (pp. 63–84). New-York: Palgrave.
Osberg, L. (Ed.). (2003). The economic implications of social cohesion. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Pahl, R. E. (1991). The search for social cohesion: From Durkheim to the European commission. Archives of European sociology, 32, 345–360.
Petterson, T. (2008). Changing Swedish civic orientations from solidarity to activism? In T. Petterson & Y. Esmer (Eds.), Changing values, persisting cultures (pp. 123–148). Leiden-Boston: Brill.
Tournois, J. & Dickes, P. (1993). Pratique de l’échelonnement multidimensionnel. (Bruxelles: De Boeck Université) http://www.europeanvalues.nl/, 2.11.2008.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
We are most grateful to Alessio Fusco, Ingwer Borg and Michel Bauer for their helpful comments.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dickes, P., Valentova, M. & Borsenberger, M. Construct Validation and Application of a Common Measure of Social Cohesion in 33 European Countries. Soc Indic Res 98, 451–473 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9551-5
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-009-9551-5