Social embeddedness as a mechanism for linking social cohesion to well-being among older adults: moderating effect of gender

Abstract

Background: The positive effect of social cohesion on well-being in older adults has been well documented. However, relatively few studies have attempted to understand the mechanisms by which social cohesion influences well-being. The main aim of the current study is to identify social pathways in which social cohesion may contribute to well-being.

Methods: The data for this study (taken from 1,880 older adults, aged 60 years and older) were drawn from a national survey conducted during 2008-2009. The survey employed a two-stage stratified sampling process for data collection. Structural equation modeling was used to test mediating and moderating analyses.

Results: The proposed model documented a good fit to the data (GFI =98; CFI =0.99; RMSEA =0.04). The findings from bootstrap analysis and the Sobel test revealed that the impact of social cohesion on well-being is significantly mediated by social embeddedness (Z=5.62; P<0.001). Finally, the results of a multigroup analysis test showed that social cohesion influences well-being through the social embeddedness mechanism somewhat differently for older men than women.

Conclusion: The findings of this study, in addition to supporting the importance of neighborhood social cohesion for the well-being of older adults, also provide evidence that the impact of social cohesion towards well-being is mediated through the mechanism of social embeddedness.

Keywords: aged; social cohesion; social embeddedness; well-being.

Figure 1

The proposed theoretical model linking social cohesion and well-being. Note: According to this model, a cohesive neighborhood may induce more supportive interpersonal connections, which provide tangible and emotional support that consequently contribute to higher levels of well-being.

Figure 2

SEM model with standardized regression weights. Notes: CMIN/DF =5.755; RMSEA =0.050; PCLOSE =0.452; GFI =0.975; AGFI =0.958; CFI =0.981; TLI =0.973. Abbreviations: SEM, structural equation modeling; SC, social cohesion; SE, social embeddedness; WB, well-being; CMIN/DF, minimum discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; PCLOSE, p-value for test of close fit; GFI, goodness of fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI, comparative fix index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis coefficient.

Figure 3

SEM model with standardized regression weights for male respondents. Notes: CMIN/DF =3.548; RMSEA =0.037; PCLOSE =1.000; GFI =0.970; AGFI =0.949; CFI =0.980; TLI =0.970. Abbreviations: SEM, structural equation modeling; SC, social cohesion; SE, social embeddedness; WB, well-being; CMIN/DF, minimum discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; PCLOSE, p-value for test of close fit; GFI, goodness of fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI, comparative fix index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis coefficient.

Figure 4

SEM model with standardized regression weights for female respondents. Notes: CMIN/DF =3.548; RMSEA =0.037; PCLOSE =1.000; GFI =0.970; AGFI =0.949; CFI =0.980; TLI =0.970. Abbreviations: SEM, structural equation modeling; SC, social cohesion; SE, social embeddedness; WB, well-being; CMIN/DF, minimum discrepancy divided by degrees of freedom; RMSEA, root mean square error of approximation; PCLOSE, p-value for test of close fit; GFI, goodness of fit index; AGFI, adjusted goodness of fit index; CFI, comparative fix index; TLI, Tucker-Lewis coefficient.