The Facets of Social Capital

The emergence of the two facets of social capital, the individual and the collective, has contributed to much of the confusion in the field of social capital. The overall objective of this article is to elaborate on a theoretical model aiming at clarifying some bridges between the facets and dimensions of social capital previously suggested in the literature. Initially, the article shortly presents and discusses some important definitions of social capital. Furthermore, limitations and shortcomings of previous definitions are discussed. Moreover, a theoretical model is elaborated on suggesting that social capital comprises social resources that evolve in accessible social networks or social structures characterized by mutual trust. This model also emphasises some of the potential dark sides of social capital. The presented definition does not definitively address the theoretical uncertainties in the field; however, it suggests that a resource‐oriented notion of social capital could be useful in bridging the facets of social capital.     

SHOULD WE TAKE DON'T KNOW FOR AN ANSWER?

Much attention has been given to the problem of non-attitudes,that is, people expressing opinions while lacking an underlyingattitude (false positives). In comparison, the potential problemof false negatives, people with an attitude who decline to expressan opinion, has been neglected. Using a survey on nuclear powerfrom Sweden, we examine whether people who answer "don't know"but are induced subsequently to give an opinion really haveattitudes. The attitudes these people express on follow-up questionspredict behavior to a significant extent. This implies thatthe usual don't know category includes some false negatives,that is, people who really have attitudes but refrain, at leastinitially, from expressing them.