The Impact of Age, Class, Income, Political Ideology, Sex, and Race on Social

Ties between Neighbors

Christine Coulter

Submitted to Dr. Toth in partial fulfillment of the requirements for SOC 4360
 INTRODUCTION

Social ties within neighborhoods is a commonly, growing issue within the American

society. Sociologists have used the concept of social ties to describe the relationships among

rather than within communities, a semantic technique that achieves its effect by drawing upon

the idea of literally isolated individuals and extending it metaphorically to the neighborhood or

group level (Klinenberg 2015). Ties to neighbors can be vital components of a vibrant social life.

Variables that are associated with social ties within neighborhoods are race, gender, age, political

views, income, and class. This paper studies the societal factors that may influence social ties

within neighborhoods and in the future may serve as a need or justification to help understand

what neighborhoods are more isolated than others. This is important to study because it seems

that the viability of the neighborhood as a basis of social interaction should be decreasing,

mainly because developments in high-speed motor transportation and indirect electronic

communications have enhanced the possibility of social ties over long distances (Guest &

Wierzbicki 1999).

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Racial Influences

Hess, Brydolf-Horwitz, & Larimore (2006) found qualitative studies on gentrifying

neighborhoods most often defined by an increase in affluence and white residents suggest that

ties between new residents should be strong, while the changing neighbor-hood dynamics drives

a wedge between existing residents and newcomers. African Americans are more likely to be

involved in religious, political, and social groups in their neighborhoods than Whites, which are

all factors that create social ties within neighborhoods (Barnes 2003).

1
 Gender Influences

According to Lee and Campbell (1997), women are more active neighbors due to their

gender-role socialization, rather than the more of time available. Research also found that the

dependence on neighbors among housewives, but also exists among employed women whose

care responsibilities limit their off-job interaction (Lee and Campbell 1997).

Age Influences

While many younger adults leave their neighborhoods for work during most of the day,

many elderly residents stay home and spend time in their neighborhoods (Pillar 2015). Their

limited mobility around the neighborhood provides opportunities to make friends and discuss

neighborhood issues with elderly neighbors (Oh 2003). According to Cornwell and Waite (2009),

as people age, they experience physical and social losses and these social losses affect their

interactions within their environments. Similarly, Guest & Wierzbicki (1999) found that as

neighborhood residents reach very old age, they are less likely to form social ties with their

neighbors. They also found that the youngest and those without children have high absolute

neighborhood activity patterns and although this might seem counterintuitive, these types of

individuals also have unusually high levels of nonneighborhood ties (Guest & Wierzbicki 1999).

This could be possible because of how young and the childless generally have fewer family ties

and thus have the time and energy to socialize outside the home.

Political Influences

Research done by Leydon (2003), measured social capital. He found that individuals with

high levels of social capital tend to be involved politically, to volunteer in their communities, and

to get together more frequently with friends and neighbors (Leydon 2003). Leydon (2003) also

found that many Americans have no choice but to live in a modern, car-dependent suburb,

2
because not enough viable, affordable traditional neighborhoods exist; their options are biased

toward car-dependent suburban subdivisions, because such environments are what most

developers build.

Wealth & Class Influences

Class is an important factor in determining social ties amongst neighbors. Gans'

argument is essentially cultural; the middle and upper classes primarily form bonds through

formal social organizations, while those in the working class have closer relationships with

family and informal groups. Demographics on neighborliness is highly related on social class.

According to research done by Guest, Cover, and Matsueda (2006), there has been an overall

decline in social ties in neighborhoods, but there is also a relative significant proportion that

interact frequently with their neighbors. Pillar (2015) conducted research that studied the social

interaction amongst neighbors within a two year period and found that 61% of respondents

reported spending a social evening with neighbors once a month or more in the first year, and in

the last analyzed year that number decreased to about 52%.

Hypothesis

For this study, there are three hypothesis examined. First, people who are older will show

less social networking within their neighborhoods than those whom are younger individuals.

Also, men are more likely to be more socially isolated than women in the same neighborhood.

Another hypothesis is that individuals who are high political views will be more isolated than

those who do not view religion and political views significantly highly important.

3
 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

Methods

For the purpose of this research, data will be collected from the 2014 General Social

Survey as provided from the Association of Religion Data Archives. The General Social Survey

is a sociological survey with 934 questions given to Americans in-person and is funded by the

National Science Foundation. In this study, the independent variables will be race, gender, age,

politics, and class with the dependent variable being neighborliness or social ties within a

neighborhood.

Dependent Variable

The dependent variable is going to be measured by using the question from the 2014 GSS

asking about the social connection between neighbors, specifically, Would you use this card and

tell me which answer comes closest to how often you do the following things: spend a social

evening with someone who lives in your neighborhood? (SOCOMMUN). The coding for this

variable is 1 equals almost every day, 2 equals once or twice a week, 3 equals several times a

month, 4 equals about once a month, 5 equals several times a year, 6 equals about once a year,

and 7 equals never.

Independent Variables

The questions pertaining to the independent variables include demographic

characteristics of age, worship attendance, political ideology, race, region, and sex.

Age was asked with the question, Respondants age (I-AGE) with the coding of 1

equals 18 to 29, 2 equals 30 to 44, 3 equals 45 to 59, 4 equals 60 to 74, and 5 equals 75 or older.

Worship attendance was measured by the question, How often do you attend religious

services? (I-ATTEND). It has the coding of 1 equals less than once a year, 2 equals once a year,

4
3 equals several times a year, 4 equals once to three times a month, 5 equals nearly every week,

and 6 equals every week or more.

Political ideology was measured by the question, We hear a lot of talk these days about

liberals and conservatives. I'm going to show you a seven-point scale on which the political

views that people might hold are arranged from extremely liberal (point 1) to extremely

conservative (point 7). Where would you place yourself on this scale? (I-POLITICS) with the

coding of 1 equals to extremely liberal or liberal, 2 equals slightly liberal, 3 equals moderate, 4

equals conservative, and 5 equals conservative or extremely conservative.

Race was measured by the question, What race do you consider yourself? (I-RACE)

with the coding of 1 equals White, 2 equals black, and 3 equals other.

Sex was measured by the question, Respondants sex (I-SEX) with the coding of 1

equals male and 2 equals female.

Income was measured by the question, In which of these groups did your total family

income, from all sources, fall last year before taxes, that is with the coding of 1 equals under

$1,000, 2 equals $1,000 to $2,999, 3 equals $3,000 to $3,999, 4 equals $4,000 to $4,999, 5

equals $5,000 to $5,999, 6 equals $6,000 to $6,999, 7 equals $7,000 to $7,999, 8 equals $8,000

to $9,999, 9 equals $10,000 to $12,499, 10 equals $12,500 to $14,999, 11 equals $15,000 to

$17,499, 12 equals $17,500 to $19,999, 13 equals $20,000 to $22,499, 14 equals $22,500 to

$24,999, 15 equals $25,000 to $29,999, 16 equals $30,000 to $34,999, 17 equals $35,000 to

$39,999, 18 equals $40,000 to $49,999, 19 equals $50,000 to $59,999, 20 equals $60,000 to

$74,999, 21 equals $75,000 to $89,999, 22 equals $90,000 to $109,999, 23 equals $110,000 to

$129,999, 24 equals $130,000 to $149,999, and 25 equals $150,000 or over.

5
 And class was measured by the question, If you were asked to use one of four names for

your social class, which would you say you belong in: the lower class, the working class, the

middle class or the upper class (CLASS) with the coding of 1 equals lower class, 2 equals

working class, 3 equals middle class, and 4 equals upper class.

Limitations

It is important to consider the limitations of this research, in particular when considering

data from the GSS. The questions never define the term neighborhood, although conceptions of it

are typically limited to an area encompassing, at most, a few blocks around ones home (Lee and

Campbell 1997). Another limitation is that lack of adequate information on a given subject due to

variables because it is impossible to control all variables. For this research, there is only one

variable being used as the dependent study. With only one variable, it is impossible to capture

everything.

FINDINGS

TABLE 1. Descriptive Statistics.

Mean (SD) Percentage

SOCOMMUN 4.64 (2.01)

AGE 49.83 (17.04)

CLASS 2.39 (.689)
INCOME06 17.24(5.75)
POLITICS 3.07 (1.30)
SEX
Male 44.6%
Female 55.4%
RACENEW
White 76%
Other 24%

Note: SD refers to standard deviation. Percentages reported only for nominal-level variables.
6
TABLE 2. Bivariate Correlation Coefficients for Independent Variables and Social Ties.

SOCOMMUN
AGE .024
CLASS -.075
INCOME06 .093
POLITICS .030
SEX .59
RACENEW .033

Note: * indicates a statistically significant relationship at the .05 level.

TABLE 3. Partial Correlation Coefficients Controlling for INCOME, CLASS, and RACENEW.

SOCOMMUN

SEX .063**
INCOME06 .023
AGE .042*

Note: * indicates a statistically significant relationship

Table 1 Descriptive Statistics

Table 1 displays the mean of the variables AGE, CLASS, INCOME06, and POLITICS.

The mean of the variable is the average answer given by respondents in relation to the answers

given on the survey by interpreting the coding for the question. The average AGE was 49.83

meaning that most of the respondents were between the age of 49 and 50 years of age. The

average CLASS was 2.39 meaning that most people who answered this question were of the

working class. The average for INCOME06 was 17.24 meaning that the majority of the

7
respondents have an income of $35,000 to $39,999. The POLITICS variable has a mean 3.07 that

indicates that most respondents stated that they would consider themselves as moderate on an

extremity scale of being extremely conservative to extremely liberal. The other variables listed in

the table have descriptive statistics given in the 2014 General Social Survey display of data.

Table 2 Bivariate Correlation

Table 2 displays the bivariate correlation coefficients for the independent variables and

neighborly social ties. None of the independent variables displayed a statistically significant

relationship with the independent variable when running a bivariate correlation on the

coefficients. The variables AGE, INCOME06, POLITICS, and RACEnew, all displayed positive,

weak correlations to SOCOMMUN. AGE displayed a correlation of .024, INCOME06 displayed

a correlation of .093, POLITICS displayed a correlation of .030, and RACEnew displayed a

correlation of .033. The variable SEX displayed a positive, moderate correlation with a

correlation of .59. And lastly, the variable CLASS displayed a negative, weak correlation with a

correlation of -.075.

Table 3 Partial Correlation

Table 3 displays the partial correlation coefficients when controlling for INCOME06,

CLASS, and RACEnew. These variables were controlled because income, class, and race will

not influence the statistical data. Several hypotheses state that people who are older will show

more social networking within their neighborhoods than those whom are younger individuals,

men are more likely to be more socially isolated than women in the same neighborhood, and

individuals who are high political views will be more isolated in neighborhoods than those who

do not view religion and political views significantly highly important. Because these hypotheses

may need further research to get defined data, SEX, POLITICS, and AGE are being correlated

8
with SOCOMMUN without further influence from INCOME06, CLASS, and RACEnew. SEX is

being correlated to display neighborly social ties based on whether someone is male or female.

The variable POLITICS is being correlated to indicate which political viewer is more likely to

have neighborly social ties. And lastly, the variable AGE is being correlated with SOCOMMUN

because it will display neighborly social ties based on a persons age.

The results for SEX are .063** which displays a positive, weak correlation to

SOCOMMUN and was statistically significant at the .05 level. The results for POLITICS is .038

which displays a positive, weak correlation to SOCOMMUN and was not statistically significant

at the .05 level. And lastly, the results for AGE is .042*, which displays a positive, weak

correlation to SOCOMMUN and was statistically significant at the .05 level.

DISCUSSION

The results within this study incorporate with the finding from the literature review. The

data in Table 2 reads the following: individuals who are between the ages of 18 to 29 are more

likely to have social ties than others, higher social classes were more likely to have social ties

than lower social classes, those with a lower income were more likely to carry on social ties in a

neighborhood, the less conservative an individual is the more likely they are to have social ties

within their neighborhood, females are more likely to have social ties within a neighborhood

than males, and that individuals who identify their race as White are less likely to have social ties

than those whom are black. The data in Table 3 displays that the variables SEX and AGE were

statistically significant, whereas the variable POLITICS was not statistically significant when

controlling for the variables INCOME06, CLASS, and RACEnew. Table 3 reads that females are

more likely to have neighborly social ties than males, individuals who are between the ages of 18

9
to 29 are more likely to have social ties than all others, and people who are more conservative

are less likely to hold social ties within a neighborhood.

CONCLUSION

The findings of this study are consistent with those found in the literature review. By

understanding what factors influence social ties within neighborhoods, changes that affect social

ties becomes measurable. Your political ideology, age, and sex all influence whether an

individual has social ties within their neighborhood.

10
 REFERENCES

Cornwell, E., & Waite, L. (2009). Social disconnectedness, perceived isolation, and health

among older adults. J Health Social Behavioral Manuscript. Retrieved from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2756979/

Guest , A. M. , J. K. Cover , R. L. Matsueda , and C. E. Kubrin . 2006 . Neighborhood context

and neighboring ties. Department of Sociology, University of Washington. 5 : 363 385 .

Guest, A. and Wierzbicki, S. (1999). Social ties at the neighbourhood level: two decades of GSS

evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35, pp. 92-111. Retreived from: http://0-

journals.sagepub.com.ucark.uca.edu/doi/pdf/10.1177/10780879922184301

Hess, C., Brydolf-Horwitz, M., & Larimore S. (2016). Neighborhood change and neighboring

social ties. Conference Papers-American Sociological Association, University of

Washington, p. 1-32. Retrieved from: http://0-

web.b.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=50c436f4-6d2c-

44fc-afd1-4523b999c25f%40sessionmgr120&vid=5&hid=116

Klinenberg, E. (2015). Alone in the city? An intellectual history of social isolation. Institute for

Policy Research Working Paper. Retreived from:

http://www.ipr.northwestern.edu/publications/docs/workingpapers/2002/IPR-WP-02-

15.pdf

Lancee, B. & Dronkers, J. (2011). Ethnic, religious and economic diversity in dutch

neighbourhoods: explaining quality of contact with neighbours, trust in the

neighbourhood and inter-ethnic trust. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 37(4), p.

597-613. Retrieved from: http://0-

11
 web.a.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=382ccc63-5069-

47a3-9318-a62d518b0cc1%40sessionmgr4008&vid=25&hid=4201

Lee, B. A., and K. E. Campbell. 1997. Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey

respondents see them. Social Science Quarterly 78:922-36.

Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable

neighborhoods. Journals of American Public Health Association. Retrieved from:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448008/

Oh, J. (2003). Assessing the Social Bonds of Elderly Neighbors: The Roles of Length of

Residence, Crime Victimization, and Perceived Disorder. Sociological Inquiry, City

University of New York 73(4): 490-510. Retrieved from: http://0-

web.a.ebscohost.com.ucark.uca.edu/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=50e8fac4-e838-

4805-908c-0f7478669982%40sessionmgr4007&vid=9&hid=4201

Putman, R. (2012). Whats so darned special about church friends? Altruism, Morality, & Social

Solidarity Forum, American Sociological Association 3(2): 1,19-21. Retrieved from:

http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:11105535

12