Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)

Published online 13 November 2003 in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com). DOI: 10.1002/casp.746

Determinants of Social Integration in the

Community: An Exploratory Analysis of Personal,
Interpersonal and Situational Variables

ENRIQUE GRACIA1* and JUAN HERRERO2

1
University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain
2
University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain

ABSTRACT

This article aims to explore the effects of personal, interpersonal, and situational variables on social
integration in the community. Structural equation analyses from two-wave panel data (N ¼ 536) of
adult participants living in an urban area showed that personal determinants (perceived stress and
depressive mood), and situational determinants (undesirable life events) were statistically related to
a decrease in social integration in the community. Interpersonal determinants (emotional, guidance,
and instrumental support) were positively associated with an increase in social integration in the
community. Implications of these and other findings are discussed. Copyright # 2003 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.

Key words: social integration; community integration; community participation; psychological

distress; perceived social support; undesirable life events

INTRODUCTION

Social integration in communities, and its negative side (i.e. social isolation from commu-
nities), has been found to covary with an array of social and behavioural outcomes such as
health and wellbeing (e.g. House, Umberson, & Landis, 1988; Umberson, 1987); family
functioning (e.g. Cochran, Larner, Riley, Gunnarsson, & Henderson, 1990; Milardo, 1988;
Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1997); adolescent development (Cotterell, 1996); competence
in old age (e.g. Antonucci & Akiyama, 1997; Rein & Salzman, 1995), family caregiving in
chronic illness (e.g. Biegel, Sales, & Schulz, 1991); or adaptation to chronic illness and
disability (e.g. Lyons, Sullivan, Ritvo, & Coyne, 1995). Attachment to a community also
produces a willingness to contribute to its maintenance (e.g. Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974;
Sampson, 1988), which suggests that individuals with higher levels of community

* Correspondence to: E. Gracia, Universitat de Valencia, Facultad de Psicologia, Departamento de Psicologia

Social, Avda. Blasco Ibañez, 21, 46010 Valencia, Spain. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 29 September 2002
2 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

attachment are more likely to provide support to others (Haines, Hurlbert, & Beggs, 1996).
Furthermore, as Zimmerman (2000) points out, ‘participation in community organizations
(e.g. neighborhood associations, mutual help groups, social change groups) is one way to
exercise a sense of competence and control’ (p. 48). For example, members of neighbour-
hood associations tend to show greater perceived competence and control, and a decrease
in alienation (Carr, Dixon, & Ogles, 1976; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). These studies
lend support to Antonovsky’s (1979) view, according to which social integration is an
important contributor to the ‘sense of coherence’, a mechanism which reduces the reac-
tivity to stress and represents an important component of psychological wellbeing in its
own right (Turner & Turner, 1999). Following Cowen’s concept of ‘routes to psychologi-
cal wellness’, the body of literature summarized earlier suggests that promotion of greater
community integration and participation offers a potentially important pathway to well-
ness (Cowen, 2000). Clearly, a better understanding of the determinants of social integra-
tion in the community can help to create opportunities to foster psychological and
community empowerment (Zimmerman, 2000). However, limited research effort has been
directed toward examining the factors that may affect social integration in the community.

Levels of social relationships: social integration in the community

A number of authors have proposed different levels of analysis in order to analyse the rela-
tion between the person and his/her social environment, of which social integration in the
community would represent the outermost layer. For example, Gottlieb (1981) has distin-
guished three levels of analysis: macro (social integration/participation approach), mezzo
(social networks approach), and micro (intimate relationships approach), in which ‘the
social integration/participation approach concerns itself with people’s involvement with
institutions, voluntary associations, and informal social life of their communities’
(p. 32). Similarly, Lin (1986) argued that the individual’s linkage to the social environment
can be represented at three distinct levels: the community, the social network, and intimate
and confiding relationships. For this author ‘the outer and most general layer of social rela-
tionships consists of relationships with the larger community, and reflects integration into,
or a sense of belongingness in, the larger social structure. An individual’s participation in
voluntary organizations (e.g. church and school, recreation and sports activities, clubs and
services, political and civic associations) indicates the extent to which the individual iden-
tifies and participates in the social environment at large’ (Lin, 1986, p. 19). Lin’s approach
underlines thus the importance of the sense of belonging to and being part of a community.
Also, Laireiter and Baumann (1992) have proposed a taxonomy in which the construct of
social integration refers to the participation and involvement of a person in his or her
social life in the community and society. For these authors, the criteria for defining a per-
son’s social integration are, among others: ‘being in regular contact with neighbours’,
‘having friends or relatives in the neighbourhood’, and ‘memberships in social groups’.

Determinants of social integration in the community

As House et al. (1988) pointed out in their influential review, ‘researchers and theorists
have extensively studied social relationships as independent, intervening and moderating
variables that may affect psychosocial stress or health or the relations between stress and
health. Yet almost no attention has been paid to social integration, networks or supports as
dependent variables. The determinants of these, as well as their consequences, are crucial
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 3

to understanding the theoretical and causal status of social relationships in relation to

health’ (p. 308, italics in original). In a recent review, Barrera (2000) has also considered
that the study of these determinants deserved attention for two reasons. First, because as
confidence increased that social support had beneficial effects, researchers had to move on
to investigate its antecedents; and second, because greater interest in social support inter-
ventions demanded that we learn more about factors that could be manipulated to increase
its availability and effectiveness.
A number of scholars have emphasized the need to consider, in addition to its effects on
wellbeing, the determinants of levels and content of social relationships (e.g. Dunkel-
Schetter & Skokan, 1990; Eckenrode & Wethington, 1990; Haines et al., 1996; Hobfoll,
1990; House, 1981; Keinan, 1997; Sarason, Pierce, & Sarason, 1990; Turner, Pearlin, &
Mullan, 1998; Vaux, 1990). Also, a basic concordance among these scholars is the idea
that variables determining the development, structure and functioning of social relation-
ships are multiple and need to be analysed at different levels—including personal, inter-
personal, and situational variables. Available research has traditionally focused on one or
another of these levels of analysis. For example, empirical associations have been found
for social relationships characteristics and variables at these different levels: at the perso-
nal level, variables such as personality, self-esteem, distress, cognitive processes, locus of
control, community participant’s perceptions or personal attitudes (e.g. Brown, 1993;
Eckenrode, 1983; Goudy, 1977; Mankowski & Wyer, 1997; Newcomb, 1990; Sarason,
Pierce, Shearin, Sarason, Waltz, & Poppe, 1991; see also Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason,
1997, for a review); at the interpersonal level, variables such as intimacy, conflict, recipro-
city, relationship-specific expectations, or characteristics of the social network (Antonucci,
Fuhrer, & Jackson, 1990; Coyne & DeLongis, 1986; Pierce, Sarason, & Sarason, 1991;
Reis, 1990; Stokes, 1983); and at the situational level, variables such as stressor character-
istics or exposure to natural disasters (e.g. Kaniasty & Norris, 1995; Pearlin & McCall,
1990; Schulz & Tomkins, 1990). Two points are worth mentioning here. First, research
on the determinants of social relationships have focused mainly on the correlates of the per-
ception, provision or reception of social support from the intimate and confiding relation-
ships, but few studies have analysed determinants of social ties with other groups and the
community (Adelman, Parks, & Albrecht, 1987; Guest & Stamm, 1993; White, 1985). And
secondly, except for few studies (e.g. Haines et al., 1996; Turner, Pearlin, & Mullan, 1998),
research rarely has considered these levels of analysis simultaneously.
Although the studies mentioned earlier have improved our understanding of the under-
lying processes of community integration, it is evident that a more comprehensive
research that includes simultaneously important predictors of social integration in the
community is needed. In this respect, the recent work of Filkins, Allen, and Cordes
(2000) should be emphasized since its multivariate approach allows to draw some inter-
esting conclusions about the role of personal, economic, socio-demographic, and commu-
nity attributes on social integration in the community. Their research, however, does not
take into account relevant variables that have been previously linked to participation and
involvement in the community life such as personal adjustment, social support and situa-
tional demands. From this perspective, the present study represents an effort to gain under-
standing of social integration in the community from a complementary rather than
opposite psychosocial perspective.
Determinants of social integration are multiple and operate at different and interrelated
levels. Failure to take into account multiple determinants can lead to overemphasis on one
set or another of variables and may, therefore, bias both our understanding of those factors
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
4 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

that may promote greater community integration, and the translation of that knowledge to
intervention strategies. Drawing from these ideas, this study aims to gain a better under-
standing of social integration in the community by exploring in the same research design
three sets of variables (personal, interpersonal, and situational) as determinants of two
measures of social integration in the community: community integration and participa-
tion. Because of the relatively few studies that have included personal, interpersonal,
and situational determinants in the same research design, in this study specific predictions
regarding the role of each of these sets of variables on social integration in the community
are not made. Instead, the relative contributions of these variables in predicting social inte-
gration in the community are explored.

METHOD

Participants
Participants were 536 adults drawn from the general population living in an urban area
(Valencia, Spain). The study was carried out with the collaboration and support of the
Department of Social and Community Services of the city. Based on their data, five neig-
bourhoods of the city were selected. Criteria for selecting these neighbourhoods were that
they would represent a reasonable cross-section of the city’s residents in terms of socio-
economic status. A quota sampling strategy of gender and age was used to have equal
number of men and women in four age groups representing four life-cycle stages:
18–25, 26–49, 50–64 and more than 64 years old (65 years being the retirement age in
Spain). Interviewers carried letters from the University Department responsible for the
research with a brief description of the study, and from the Department of Social and
Community Services of the city describing the collaboration with the University and
the possible use of the study’s data to orientate their policies. Participants were identified
by in-person recruitment (door-to-door canvassing). Interviews were conducted in the
respondents’ homes. Limits were placed on the number of interviews that could be
obtained in any one block, and only one interview was allowed per household.
In the first wave 1051 participants completed the questionnaires (response rate ¼ 78%).
The most common reason for refusal was simply disinterest. The second wave was com-
pleted 6 months after the first wave. Almost 75% (N ¼ 780) of the respondents completed
the questionnaires in the second wave. Respondents having missing values in some of the
variables (N ¼ 184) were excluded from this study. This led to a number of 596 partici-
pants. Another 66 participants were excluded since they did not belong to the single/mar-
ried categories used in the present analyses (see control variables later).
Exploratory analysis between wave 2 respondents (N ¼ 780) and dropouts (N ¼ 271)
failed to find any statistically significant relation between various socio-demographic vari-
ables in wave 1 and the response rate in Wave 2: age F(1, 1043) ¼ 0.48, p ¼ 0.487, marital
status F(1, 1036) ¼ 2.37, p ¼ 0.124, income F(1, 954) ¼ 2.71, p ¼ 0.100, gender
F(1, 1045) ¼ 0.74, p ¼ 0.786, and education F(1, 1029) ¼ 0.43, p ¼ 0.510. Overall, the
wave two sample was comparable to the wave one sample.

Measures
All variables are scored so that a high score represents higher levels of the construct. Cor-
relations among observed variables are presented in Table 1.
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Table 1. Means (M), standard deviations (SD), and zero-order correlations of observed variables
Variable M SD (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13)
1. Stress 36.30 7.20 —
2. Depression 13.69 8.56 0.71*** —
3. Emotional support 2.22 0.56 0.10*
0.09* —
4. Guidance support 2.06 0.59
0.09*
0.06 0.66*** —
5. Instrumental support 2.48 0.52
0.05
0.06 0.58*** 0.56*** —

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

6. Stressful life events 1.55 1.71 0.21*** 0.20***
0.08
0.13**
0.06 —
7. Community 16.23 2.56 0.23***
0.22*** 0.12** 0.20*** 0.14**
0.16*** —
integration T2a
8. Community 16.12 5.10
0.11**
0.15** 0.07 0.15*** 0.03
0.17*** 0.25*** —
participation T2a
b
9. Gender 1.49 0.50 0.26*** 0.20*** 0.05 0.06 0.03
0.01
0.07
0.08 —
10. Age 37.67 15.63
0.10*
0.00 0.02 0.15***
0.03 0.14** 0.17*** 0.12**
0.07 —
11. Incomec 2.67 1.24
0.09*
0.08 0.02 0.01
0.02 0.12**
0.04 0.01
0.02 0.11* —
12. Educationd 4.01 1.33
0.03
0.03 0.04
0.04
0.02 0.05
0.13**
0.11* 0.00
0.38*** 0.27*** —
e
13. Marital status 1.54 0.50
0.06
0.00 0.06 0.09* 0.03
0.12** 0.11* 0.07 0.01 0.66*** 0.31***
0.26*** —
a
Descriptive statistics are for scale scores; correlations are for change scores.
b
1 ¼ male, 2 ¼ female.
c
1 ¼ no educational background, 6 ¼ university studies.
d
1 ¼ less than 6000 euros per year, 6 ¼ more than 32,000 euros per year.
e
1 ¼ single, 2 ¼ married.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).
Determinants of social integration in the community
5

J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)

6 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

Personal determinants
Personal characteristics have been linked both theoretically and empirically to levels of
social integration (e.g. Coyne, 1978; Newcomb, 1990; Newcomb & Keefe; 1997; Rook,
Pietromonaco, & Lewis, 1994). To capture different aspects of individual psychological
functioning, two measures of psychological distress were selected (see Newcomb, 1990,
for a similar approach). Psychological distress, although has most often been viewed as an
outcome diminished by social support, may also be an important trigger activating social
integration processes. All personal determinants were measured at Time 1 (T1).
Perceived stress. A global measure of the Spanish version of the Perceived Stress
Scale (PSS; Cohen, Kamarck, & Merlmestein, 1983) was used. The PSS is a 14-item scale
that measures the degree to which respondents appraised situations as stressful in the last
month (e.g. ‘In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to
handle your personal problems’). Items were scored on a one to five-point scale from (1)
never to (5) very often. Coefficient alpha for perceived stress scale was 0.83.
Depression. The Spanish version of the Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression
Scale (CES-D; Radloff, 1977) was used. CES-D is a 20-item scale that evaluates the
presence of depressive symptomatology including depressed mood, positive affect, somatic
and retarded activity, and negative perception of interpersonal relationships. Responses
were rated on a four-point scale from (0) rarely or none of the time (less than once a week)
to (3) most or all of the time (5–7 days a week). Coefficient alpha was 0.88.

Interpersonal determinants
The support derived from interpersonal transactions within the network of close ties was
used as an indicator of interpersonal determinants. Perceived support refers to the belief
that, if the need arose, people from the individual’s social network would be available to
serve one or more specific function such as emotional support, guidance or instrumental
support (Cutrona, Suhr, & MacFarlane, 1990). Perceived support from social relation-
ships—also an indicator of levels of intimacy, emotional intensity and confidence in
social relationships—has been linked to community support processes (Haines et al.,
1996). Interpersonal determinants were measured at T1.
Perceived social support. A six-item network-format questionnaire of perceived
social support was constructed to assess the degree of support respondents perceived from
each member of their support network. We asked respondents to list ‘those persons who
are important to you. Please consider only those persons who really support you in a truly
personal way’. Then, they had to answer six questions for each person listed in his/her
support network.
Responses were rated on a five-point scale from (0) never to (4) almost always that cov-
ered the following dimensions of perceived social support: emotional—two items—(e.g.
‘Could you freely express and share your emotions with this person?’); instrumental—
two items—(e.g. ‘If you were sick or needed to be taken to the doctor, would this person
be of any help?’); and guidance—two items—(e.g. ‘Would this person be of any help if
you should have to make an important decision?’). Internal consistency for the scale was
alpha of 0.76. Principal components analysis with varimax rotation yielded a three-factor
structure with factor loadings greater than j0:50j. The three factors and their explained
variance were: guidance (23%), instrumental (21%), and emotional (16%). Coefficient
alpha for each scale was: emotional (0.88), instrumental (0.88), and guidance (0.93).

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 7

Situational determinants
Stressor characteristics have been considered a significant situational constraint affecting
support processes. For example, stressful life events are important situational factors that
may either mobilize or deteriorate support resources (Barrera, 1988; Ensel & Lin, 1991;
Wheaton, 1985). The number of undesirable life events experienced by participants was
chosen as a measure of situational constraints in this study. Situational determinants were
measured at T1.
Undesirable life events. A list of 33 undesirable life events were selected from a 118
events list used by Lin, Dean, and Ensel (1986) in the Albany Health Survey. This list of
33 stressful life events comprised only those events perceived as undesirable by at
least 80% of respondents in Lin et al.’s (1986) study. Conflicts and problems in areas
such as work/school, home, love and marriage, family, health, community, finances,
and legal were covered in this checklist. Internal consistency analysis for event lists
were not appropriate ‘since a high internal consistency suggests that the questionnaire
includes events that are nonindependent, an outcome that is undesirable if the measure
is designed to asses accumulation of relatively independent life experiences’ (Cohen,
1988, p. 16).

Social integration in the community

An 11-item questionnaire tapping two dimensions of social integration in the community
was constructed. This instrument is based on the definition and dimensions of community
support proposed by Lin, Dumin, and Woelfel (1986), and is a revised version of a ques-
tionnaire used in research reported elsewhere (Gracia, Garcı́a, & Musitu, 1995). The two
dimensions of social integration in the community measures were the sense of belonging
to a community (community integration) and the degree of involvement in the community
(community participation). By using these dimensions as indicators of social integration
in the community we tried to tap two aspects of social integration: social-psychological or
emotional integration which involves introspective social experiences or perceived depth
of connectedness, and structural integration which refers to concrete involvement in activ-
ities (Moen, Dempster-McClain, & Williams, 1989; see also Lin et al., 1986; Myers, 1999,
for a similar approach). By tapping both aspects of social integration in the community
(sense of connectedness, and actual participation) the study has tried to capture the con-
struct of social integration in its broader sense.
The responses were rated on a five-point scale from (1) strongly disagree to (5) strongly
agree. The Community Integration Scale is a five-item scale that measures the sense of
belonging and/or identification to a community or a neighbourhood (e.g. ‘very few people
in the community know who I am’). The Community Participation Scale is a six-item
scale that measures the degree in which respondent is involved in social activities in
the community (e.g. ‘I collaborate with organizations and associations in my commu-
nity’). Internal consistency for the 11 items was alpha of 0.85. Principal components ana-
lysis with varimax rotation for these 11 items yielded a two-factor structure with factor
loadings greater than j0:50j. The two factors and their explained variance were: commu-
nity integration (30%), and community participation (24%). Coefficient alpha was 0.76 for
community integration and 0.83 for community participation. Community integration and
participation were measured at T1 and Time 2 (T2). Community integration at T1
(M ¼ 16.33; SD ¼ 2.62) correlated r ¼ 0.60 ( p < 0.001) with community integration at
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
8 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

T2. Community participation at T1 (M ¼ 16.00; SD ¼ 5.29) correlated r ¼ 0.70

( p < 0.001) with T2 community participation.
Both community integration and participation were assessed as change scores from
wave 1 to wave 2 of the study. We used an approach for measuring change proposed by
Ensel and Lin (1991) (see also, Peek & Lin, 1999). This approach avoids the problem of
distorting effects of other variables in the model on the final dependent variable. To com-
pute the change score, T1 community integration was regressed on other model variables.
Residual score was computed by subtracting predicted T1 community integration from
their actual value. The residual score was then included in the regression equation as an
independent variable with T2 community integration as a dependent variable. Another
residual score was computed by subtracting predicted T2 integration from the actual T2
community integration. The same was done for the community participation variable.
Finally, these two measures of change were used as indicators of the social integration
in the community latent variable (T2). This final endogenous latent variable represents
the variance of T2 community integration and participation in the community that cannot
be predicted by T1 community integration and participation in the community, net of other
variables assessed at T1 (Peek & Lin, 1999).
Control variables
According to House et al. (1988), the influence of socio-demographic variables on social
integration can be illuminated examining individuals in different structural positions in
society such as gender, age, socio-economic status, or ethnicity. Age, income, education,
gender and marital status were socio-demographic variables used as control variables in
this study. Other variables traditionally used in the literature as ethnicity were not included
in the study since in Spain there is not a multi-ethnic background. Participants in this study
belonged to the same ethnical and cultural background.
Age was measured in years (M ¼ 38.99, SD ¼ 16.50). Income was measured on a six-
point scale, being three the annual average family income (M ¼ 2.62, SD ¼ 1.23). The
average income for the entire sample was 12,000–18,000 euros per year. Education was
rated from (1) no educational background to (6) University studies (M ¼ 3.92, SD ¼ 1.36).
Gender (male ¼ 1 and female ¼ 2) and marital status (1 ¼ single; 2 ¼ married) were dis-
tributed approximately equally in the sample (51.5% male, 48.5% female; 46% single,
54% married). Although categories other than single/married marital statuses were
assessed (separated, divorced and widow), only a small percentage (7.1%) of the sample
fell into these categories: widowed (N ¼ 36), separated (N ¼ 13), and divorced (N ¼ 13).
Due to the small number of participants in each category, analyses were only done on the
single/married respondents.
Exploratory analysis between Wave 2 respondents (N ¼ 780) and dropouts (N ¼ 271)
showed that dropouts scored higher on stress—F(1, 1010) ¼ 43.63, p ¼ <0.001; depres-
sion—F(1, 994) ¼ 38.17, p < 0.001; and undesirable life events—F(1, 1045) ¼ 4.40,
p ¼ 0.36, than wave 2 respondents. As for the levels of emotional—F(1, 1045) ¼ 0.00,
p ¼ 0.94; guidance—F(1, 1045) ¼ 0.23, p ¼ 0.62; and instrumental—F(1, 1045) ¼ 0.13,
p ¼ 0.72 support, no differences were found. The same applied for community integra-
tion—F(1, 1017) ¼ 0.15, p ¼ 0.70; and participation—F(1, 1032) ¼ 0.26, p ¼ 0.61.
We used EQS (Bentler, 1995) structural equation program to estimate a set of models
examining the effects of determinants on social integration in the community. Maximum
Likelihood estimator and corrected
2 were used for the calculation of robust CFI fit index,
standard errors, and statistical significance of the parameters. For correcting departure
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 9

Figure 1. Determinants of social integration in the community. Summary of standardized

parameter estimates among determinants. Numbers in small circles represent the error variance for
each endogenous variable. *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

from multinormality, the Satorra–Bentler corrected
2 was used. This statistic gives robust
estimates with large samples (N > 500) even when departure from multinormality is
severe (Chou & Bentler, 1995; Curran, West, & Finch, 1996).

RESULTS

The single contribution of each determinant to social integration in the community was
tested. In this model (see Figure 1), personal (T1), interpersonal (T1), and situational
determinants (T1) had unidirectional paths to social integration in the community (T2).
Covariances among exogenous latent variables were freely estimated. This model fit
the data well (see Table 2).
To further check for spurious relationships among determinants due to the effect of
socio-demographic variables, the control variables in the model as covariates were
included. All covariates were added to the model as exogenous variables that were
allowed to correlate among themselves and to predict each of the four endogenous vari-
ables. The final structural model1 with the control variables fit the data well (see Table 2).
In Table 2 the unstandardized parameter estimates for both the original model and the
model with covariates are presented.

Parameter estimates
As shown in Table 2, the relationship between latent variables and their respective man-
ifest indicators were from moderate to large, and statistically significant ( p < 0.001).
A closer inspection of the unstandardized regression estimates of Table 2 shows that
1
The robustness of this final structural model was further checked by testing interaction effects of determinants on
social integration as well as multigroup comparisons for levels of age, gender, marital status, household income,
and educational background. None of the interaction effects were significant and as for the multigroup analyses
the model was almost fully equivalent across groups of socio-demographic variables.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
10 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

Table 2. Unstandardized maximum likelihood parameter estimates, and probability associated for
main effects model without/with covariatesa
Model without covariatesb Model with covariatesc

Factor loadings
Personal determinants
Perceived stress (T1)d 1 1
Depression (T1) 1.161*** (0.138) 1.042*** (0.095)
Interpersonal determinants
Emotional support (T1)d 1 1
Guidance support (T1) 1.023*** (0.057) 1.022*** (0.056)
Instrumental support (T1) 0.810*** (0.055) 0.807*** (0.055)
Situational determinants
Stressful life events (T1)d 1 1
Social integration in the community
Community integration (T2)d 1 1
Community participation (T2) 1.221*** (0.272) 1.228*** (0.233)
Relationships among latent variables
Personal–interpersonal
0.426** (0.162)
0.459** (0.174)
Personal–situational 2.379*** (0.601) 2.358*** (0.546)
Interpersonal–situational
0.104** (0.034)
0.096** (0.032)
Personal–social integration
0.071*** (0.016)
0.058*** (0.017)
Interpersonal–social integration 0.683*** (0.206) 0.643** (0.202)
Situational–social integration
0.139* (0.057)
0.217* (0.093)
a
Robust standard errors in parenthesis.
b
(Satorra-Bentler scaled)
2 (15, N ¼ 536) ¼ 24.15, p ¼ 0.062, CFI ¼ 0.99, Robust CFI ¼ 0.99, GFI ¼ 0.99,
AGFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.034 (90% confidence interval 0.000, 0.058).
c
(Satorra-Bentler scaled)
2 (35, N ¼ 536) ¼ 68.13, p < 0.001, CFI ¼ 0.98, Robust CFI ¼ 0.97, GFI ¼ 0.98,
AGFI ¼ 0.95, RMSEA ¼ 0.042 (90% confidence interval 0.027, 0.057).
d
Unstandardized parameters fixed to 1.00 during estimation.
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test).

the substantive part of the model (relationships among latent variables) is very similar
with and without the control variables. In both models, personal and situational determi-
nants are linked to a decrease in social integration in the community, while interpersonal
determinants are related to an increase in social integration in the community. Although
not shown in Table 2, control variables only significantly affected personal and interper-
sonal determinants. Gender was positively related to personal determinants, females
showing higher levels of psychological distress than males (B ¼ 3.497, SE ¼ 0.594,
p < 0.001). Age and income affected situational determinants significantly, with lower
levels of undesirable life events among older (B ¼
0.012, SE ¼ 0.006, p < 0.05) and
higher-income participants (B ¼
0.150, SE ¼ 0.065, p < 0.05).
Figure 1 shows the standardized structural paths among determinants and social inte-
gration for the model with control variables. Personal ( ¼
0.29, p < 0.001), interperso-
nal ( ¼ 0.23, p < 0.01) and situational determinants ( ¼
0.22, p < 0.05) were
statistically related to changes in social integration and participation over time. Figure 1
also shows the negative statistically significant correlation between personal–interperso-
nal (r ¼
0.16, p < 0.01) and interpersonal–situational (r ¼
0.16, p < 0.001) disturbance
terms and the positive statistically significant correlation between interpersonal–situa-
tional (r ¼ 0.30, p < 0.001) disturbance terms.
Total effects for this final structural model were also calculated to analyse the influences
of determinants on the observed variables at T2 (community integration and participation)
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 11

and to further test if these determinants had a differential influence on these observed vari-
ables. Personal ( ¼
0.20, p < 0.001), Interpersonal ( ¼ 0.10, p < 0.01), and situational
( ¼
0.11, p < 0.01) determinants had significant total effects on community integration.
Also, personal ( ¼
0.14, p < 0.001), interpersonal ( ¼ 0.10, p < 0.01), and situational
( ¼
0.09, p < 0.05) determinants had significant total effects on community participa-
tion. In sum, all total effects were statistically significant and in the same direction of that
suggested by the final structural model.

DISCUSSION

This study explored from a multivariate and prospective approach the determinants of
social integration in the community. By testing a model in which personal, interpersonal,
and situational determinants affect social integration in the community, the contribution of
each factor can be better comprehended. As for personal determinants, our results suggest
that psychological distress is an important determinant of community integration and par-
ticipation. These finding are in line with studies in which people scoring high in depression
have been rated by observers as less effective support providers and seekers, and may gen-
erate avoidant behaviour in other people (e.g. Coyne, 1978; Rook, Pietromonaco, & Lewis,
1994). Those with higher levels of psychological distress may feel inhibited from initiating
or maintaining social contacts with others. According to our data, this is the case not only
regarding intimate and close network of support but also for the outermost layers of social
relations—relationships with neighbours, participation in social groups in the community.
Interpersonal determinants (i.e. perceived social support derived from interpersonal
transactions) also make significant contributions to social integration in the community.
As Newcomb and Keefe (1997) have indicated, those who feel confident with the support
and responsiveness of significant others are likely to increase social bonds and solidify
existing attachment patterns. Our data shows that a strong feeling of support within the net-
work of close ties is an important predictor of feelings of attachment, and involvement in
the informal life of the communitiy. Following the levels of analysis proposed by Gottlieb
(1981) and Lin (1986), it would be hypothesized that macro (social integration/community)
and micro (intimate relationships) layers of social relations are linked. This study suggests
that support processes at a more micro level are a relevant precondition of attachment and
involvement in the greater social structure (i.e. the community). This study has also found a
negative effect of situational determinants on social integration in the community. Unde-
sirable life events have been considered to be an important situational factor that may
mobilize or deteriorate support resources, and the findings suggest that these kinds of
events have a negative influence on social integration and participation over time.
These patterns of relationships (main effects) held after controlling for socio-demo-
graphic variables (gender, age, marital status, education, and income). No interactive
effects among determinants were found. Also, multigroup analysis indicated that the
model was almost fully equivalent across groups of gender, age, marital status, education
and income. In sum, the data shows a consistent pattern in which personal, interpersonal,
and situational determinants are important predictors of social integration in the commu-
nity. Social integration in the community has been considered as a way to exercise a sense
of competence and control, and as an important component of psychological wellbeing in
its own right (Antonovsky, 1979; Turner & Turner, 1999; Zimmerman, 2000). From this
perspective, the promotion of community integration and participation offers a potentially
Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
12 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

important ‘pathway to wellness’ (Cowen, 2000), and this study signals potentially impor-
tant paths that may lead to greater integration and participation. Given that community
interventions may generate opportunities to foster empowerment, creating social life,
and promoting social integration, it is particularly important for well-targeted interven-
tions to take into account different variables determining social integration.
The study also has some weaknesses. One is its non-probabilistic sampling strategy. The
samples were not drawn randomly and thus are not necessarily representative of the popu-
lation. However, the heterogeneity of the sample of the study should compensate for this
shortcoming. Also, results can not be generalized to other groups such as immigrants, rural
residents, others than single/married (divorced, widowed, etc.), ethnic minorites, or groups
with special needs (e.g. chronic illness, drug-abuse), since their circumstances may vary
substantially from those of the sample studied in this research. Finally, we are aware that
other environmental and macrosocial variables relevant to examining determinants of
social integration in the community have not been analysed in this study. As Barrerra
(2000) has recently maintained, ‘research on the environmental determinants of social sup-
port structure and functions might call for levels of analysis larger than the individual. For
example, if we were interested in the influence of setting size and organizational structure
on social support, communities, schools, work settings, religious congregations, or social
groups could serve as units of analysis’ (p. 217). According to House et al. (1988), the
impact of macrosocial structures on processes of social integration and support can be illu-
minated by several kinds of research. Firstly, examining how structures and processes of
social relationships vary across groups of individuals in different structural positions in
society, such as class, age, gender. Secondly, examining variations in structures and
processes of social relationships across different organizational units of society, such as
different communities (urban versus rural), formal organizations, residential areas. And
finally, examining the effects of planned or unplanned changes in macrosocial structures
of society, such as changes in public policy. Although some promising research has
appeared in recent years exploring environmental and macrosocial determinants of social
integration such as position in the social structure, patterns of community and housing,
neigbourhood level of risk, inmigration, policy changes, or the effects of natural disasters
(e.g. Filkins et al., 2000; Gracia et al., 1995; Guest & Stamm, 1993; Haines et al., 1996;
Schwarzer, Hahn, & Schroeder, 1994; Turner & Marino, 1994), we share House et al.’s
(1988) view that identifying environmental and macrosocial determinants of structures
and functions of social relationships still remains a critical research area.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This research was supported by Grant BSO2001-3182 from the Ministry of Science and
Technology of Spain and Grant GV2001-265 from the Office of Science and Technology
of the Valencian Community Government.

REFERENCES

Adelman, M. B., Parks, M., & Albrecht, T. L. (1987). Beyond close relationships: Support in weak
ties. In T. L. Albrecht, & M. B. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating social support. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Antonovsky, A. (1979). Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 13

Antonucci, T. C., & Akiyama, H. (1997). Social support and the maintenance of competence. In S. L.
Willis, & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Societal mechanisms for maintaining competence in old age:
Societal impact on aging. New York: Springer.
Antonucci, T. C., Fuhrer, R., & Jackson, J. S. (1990). Social support and reciprocity: A cross-ethnic
and cross-national perspective. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 519–530.
Barrera, M. (1988). Models of social support and life stress. In L. H. Cohen (Ed.), Life events and
psychological functioning, theoretical and methodological issues. London: Sage.
Barrerra, M. (2000). Social support research in community psychology. In J. Rappaport, &
E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Bentler, P. M. (1995). EQS structural equations program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.
Biegel, D. E., Sales, E., & Schulz, R. (1991). Family caregiving in chronic illness. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Brown, R. B. (1993). Rural community satisfaction and attachment in mass consumer society. Rural
Sociology, 58, 387–403.
Carr, T. H., Dixon, M. C., & Ogles, R. M. (1976). Perceptions of community life which distinguish
between participants and nonparticipants in a neighborhood self-help organization. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 4, 357–366.
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A catalyst
for participation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18,
55–81.
Chou, C. P., & Bentler, P. M. (1995). Estimates and tests in structural equation modeling. In R. H.
Hoyle (Ed.), Structural equation modeling. Concepts, issues, and applications. London: Sage.
Cochran, M., Larner, M., Riley, D., Gunnarsson, L., & Henderson, C. (Eds.). (1990). Extending
families: The social networks of parents and their children. New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Cohen, L. H. (1988). Measurement of life events. In L. H. Cohen (Ed.), Life events and psychosocial
functioning: Theoretical and methodological issues. London: Sage.
Cohen, S., Kamarck, T., & Merlmestein, R. (1983). A global measure of perceived stress. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 24, 385–396.
Cotterell, J. (1996). Social networks and social influences in adolescence. London: Routledge.
Cowen, E. L. (2000). Community psychology and routes to psychological wellness. In J. Rappaport,
& E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Coyne, J. C. (1978). Depression and responses of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 85,
186–193.
Coyne, J. C., & DeLongis, A. (1986). Going beyond social support: The role of social relationships
in adaptation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 454–460.
Curran, P. J., West, S. G., & Finch, J. F. (1996). The robustness of test statistics to nonnormality and
specification error in confirmatory factor analysis. Psychological Methods, 1, 16–29.
Cutrona, C. E., Suhr, J. A., & MacFarlane, R. (1990). Interpersonal transactions and the
psychological sense of support. In S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support.
London: Sage.
Dunkel-Schetter, C., & Skokan, L. A. (1990). Determinants of social support provision in personal
relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 437–450.
Eckenrode, J., & Wethington, E. (1990). The process and outcome of mobilizing social support. In
S. Duck (Ed.), Personal relationships and social support. London: Sage.
Eckenrode, J. (1983). The mobilization of social supports: Some individual constraints. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 509–528.
Ensel, W. M., & Lin, N. (1991). The life stress paradigm and psychosocial distress. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 32, 321–341.
Filkins, R., Allen, J. C., & Cordes, S. (2000). Predicting community satisfaction among rural
residents: An integrative model. Rural Sociology, 65, 72–86.
Gottlieb, B. H. (1981). Social networks and social support in community mental health. In B. H.
Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support. London: Sage.
Goudy, W. J. (1977). Evaluations of local attributes and community satisfaction in small towns.
Rural Sociology, 42, 371–382.
Gracia, E., Garcı́a, F., & Musitu, G. (1995). Macrosocial determinants of social integration: Social
class and area effect. Journal of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 105–119.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
14 E. Gracia and J. Herrero

Guest, A. M., & Stamm, K. R. (1993). Paths of community integration. Sociological Quarterly, 34,
581–595.
Haines, V. A., Hurlbert, J. S., & Beggs, J. J. (1996). Exploring the determinants of support provision:
Provider characteristics, personal networks, community contexts, and support following life
events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 252–264.
Hobfoll, S. E. (1990). Introduction: The importance of predicting, activating and facilitating social
support. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 435–436.
House, J. S. (1981). Work stress and social support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
House, J. S., Umberson, D., & Landis, K. R. (1988). Structures and processes of social support.
American Review of Sociology, 14, 293–318.
Kaniasty, K., & Norris, F. H. (1995). In search of altruistic community: Patterns of social support
mobilization following hurricane Hugo. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23,
447–477.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American
Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.
Keinan, G. (1997). Social support, stress and personality. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, &
B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality. New York: Plenum.
Laireiter, A., & Baumann, U. (1992). Network structures and support functions—theorical and
empirical analysis. In H. Veiel, & U. Baumann (Eds.), The meaning and measurement of social
support. New York: Hemisphere.
Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin, A. Dean, & W. Ensel (Eds.), Social
support, life events, and depression. New York: Academic Press.
Lin, N., Dean, A., & Ensel, W. (1986). Social support, life events and depression. New York:
Academic Press.
Lin, N., Dumin, M. Y., & Woelfel, M. (1986). Measuring community and network support. In N. Lin,
A. Dean, & W. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events and depression. New York: Academic Press.
Lyons, R. F., Sullivan, M. J. L., Ritvo, P. G., & Coyne, J. C. (1995). Relationships in chronic illness
and disability. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Mankowski, E. S., & Wyer, R. S. (1997). Cognitive causes and consequences of perceived social
support. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G. Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social
support and personality. New York: Plenum.
Milardo, R. M. (Ed.). (1988). Families and social networks. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Moen, P., Dempster-McClain, D., & Williams, R. M., Jr. (1989). Social integration and longevity:
An event-history of women’s roles and resilience. American Sociological Review, 54, 635–647.
Myers, S. M. (1999). Childhood migration and social integration in adulthood. Journal of Marriage
and the Family, 61, 774–789.
Newcomb, M. D. (1990). Social support and personal characteristics: A developmental and
interactional perspective. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 54–68.
Newcomb, M. D., & Keefe, K. (1997). Social support, self-esteem, social conformity, and
gregariousness: Developmental patterns across twelve years. In G. R. Pierce, B. Lakey, I. G.
Sarason, & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Sourcebook of social support and personality. New York:
Plenum.
Pearlin, L. I., & McCall, M. E. (1990). Occupational stress and marital support: A description of
microprocesses. In J. Eckenrode, & S. Gore (Eds.), Stress between work and family. New York:
Plenum.
Peek, M., & Lin, N. (1999). Age differences in the effects of network composition on psychological
distress. Social Science & Medicine, 49, 621–636.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, B. R., & Sarason, I. G. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of social support and the
family. New York: Plenum.
Pierce, G. R., Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1991). General and relationship-based perceptions of
social suppport: Are two constructs better than one? Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 61, 1028–1039.
Radloff, L. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report depression scale for research in the general
population. Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401.
Rein, M., & Salzman, H. (1995). Social integration, participation, and exchange in five industrial
countries. In S. A. Bass (Ed.), Older and active: How Americans over 55 are contributing to
society. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)
 Determinants of social integration in the community 15

Reis, H. T. (1990). The role of intimacy in interpersonal relationships. Journal of Social and Clinical
Psychology, 9, 15–30.
Rook, K. S., Pietromonaco, P. R., & Lewis, M. A. (1994). When are dysphoric individuals distress in
to others and vice versa? Effects of friendship, similarity, and interaction task. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 548–559.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friedship ties and community attachment in mass society. American
Sociological Review, 53, 766–779.
Sarason, B. R., Pierce, G. R., Shearin, E. N., Sarason, I. G., Waltz, J. A., & Poppe, L. (1991).
Perceived social support and working models of self and actual others. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 273–287.
Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Social support and interactional processes: A
triadic hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 495–506.
Schulz, R., & Tomkins, C. A. (1990). Life events and changes in social relationships: Examples,
mechanisms, and measurement. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 69–77.
Schwarzer, R., Hahn, A., & Schroeder, H. (1994). Social integration and social support in a life
crisis: Effects of macrosocial change in East Germany. American Journal of Community
Psychology, 22, 685–706.
Stokes, J. P. (1983). Predicting satisfaction with social support form social network structure.
American Journal of Community Psychology, 11, 141–152.
Turner, H. A., Pearlin, L. I., & Mullan, J. T. (1998). Sources and determinants of social support for
caregivers of persons with AIDS. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39, 137–151.
Turner, R. J., & Marino, F. (1994). Social support and social structure: A descriptive epidemiology.
Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 35, 193–212.
Turner, R. J., & Turner, J. B. (1999). Social integration and support. In C. C. Aneshensel, S. Carol, &
J. C. Phelan (Eds.), Handbook of the sociology of mental health. New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
Umberson, D. (1987). Family status and health behavior: Social control as a dimension of social
integration. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 28, 306–319.
Vaux, A. (1990). An ecological approach to understanding and facilitating social support. Journal of
Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 507–518.
Wheaton, B. (1985). Models for the stress-buffering functions of coping resources. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 26, 352–364.
White, M. J. (1985). Determinants of community satisfaction in Middletown. American Journal of
Community Psychology, 13, 583–597.
Zimmerman, M. A. (2000). Empowerment theory: Psychological, organizational and community
levels of analysis. In J. Rappaport, & E. Seidman (Eds.), Handbook of community psychology.
New York: Kluwer/Plenum.

Copyright # 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol., 14: 1–15 (2004)