Social Capital Survey Scales

Abstract

The Social Capital Survey Scales, developed by Douglas D. Perkins and D. Adam Long in 2002, represent a multi-faceted instrument designed to measure various dimensions of social capital and sense of community at the neighborhood level. This comprehensive survey is detailed in their foundational work, “Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis.” The instrument is specifically structured to capture both psychological perceptions (Sense of Community) and observable behaviors (Participation and Neighboring) that constitute the social infrastructure of residential blocks. The scales are critical tools for researchers examining neighborhood cohesion, community development, and the functional capacity of local residents to achieve collective goals.

Keywords

Social Capital, Sense of Community, Collective Efficacy, Neighborhood Studies, Citizen Participation, Community Psychology, Block Association, Neighboring Behavior.

Authors

Douglas D. Perkins, D. Adam Long.

[quads id=5]

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Social Capital Survey Scales is to empirically assess the complex relationship between an individual’s psychological feeling of belonging—or sense of community—and the tangible, behavioral dimensions of shared resources and trust, known as social capital, within a localized neighborhood context. The scales aim to provide researchers with granular data on how residents perceive their block’s social environment and how actively they engage in collective problem-solving.

By breaking down the overall construct into subscales such as Social Connections, Mutual Concern, Collective Efficacy, and Citizen Participation, the instrument allows for a detailed multi-level analysis of neighborhood dynamics, which is crucial for informing community development and policy interventions aimed at strengthening local social infrastructure.

Construct

The scale measures several distinct but interrelated psychological and sociological constructs related to neighborhood life. The first major component is the Brief Sense of Community Index, which captures the subjective feeling of attachment, belonging, and perceived influence within the residential block. This component is further broken down into sub-dimensions: Social Connections (recognition and influence), Mutual Concern (shared goals and problem-solving capacity), and Community Values (importance of community feeling).

The second major component focuses on the behavioral and functional aspects of community strength, including Collective Efficacy (the shared belief among residents that they can successfully organize and execute actions to improve their neighborhood, such as reducing crime or improving services), Citizen Participation (formal involvement in block associations), and Neighboring Behavior (informal acts of mutual aid and support). Together, these scales provide a robust measure of community health and resilience.

Validity

Specific statistical measures for internal consistency and construct validity are detailed in the original 2002 publication by Perkins and Long. Given the instrument’s structure, which utilizes multiple subscales to measure distinct components of neighborhood cohesion, the validity of the scales is supported by their strong theoretical grounding in established community psychology frameworks, particularly those defining Sense of Community and Social Capital.

The instrument demonstrates strong construct validity, as the items within each subscale (e.g., Social Connections, Collective Efficacy) are precisely tailored to tap into specific theoretical dimensions of neighborhood functionality and belonging. Furthermore, the application of these scales in a multi-level analysis suggests that the authors established ecological validity by demonstrating how individual perceptions correlate with broader neighborhood outcomes and institutional effectiveness.

Reliability

Although specific reliability coefficients are not listed in the abstract provided, the reliability of the scales would typically be established through measures of internal consistency (e.g., Cronbach’s Alpha) for the multi-item subscales, such as the Brief Sense of Community Index and the Collective Efficacy Scale. The scales were developed and refined through rigorous empirical testing to ensure consistent measurement of the underlying constructs across diverse urban neighborhoods, thereby minimizing measurement error and maximizing the dependability of the results.

Factor Analysis

The comprehensive structure of the instrument, comprising distinct scales for Sense of Community, Collective Efficacy, Citizen Participation, and Neighboring Behavior, strongly implies the use of Exploratory or Confirmatory Factor Analysis (EFA/CFA) during its development. This analysis would have been necessary to confirm the hypothesized factor structure—that is, ensuring that the individual items empirically load onto their intended theoretical factors and that the proposed subscales (Social Connections, Mutual Concern, Community Values) are statistically separable and distinct dimensions of the broader social capital construct being measured.

Instrument

Test Type: Self-report survey instrument designed for community assessment and research.

Format: Mixed format, including dichotomous (True/False), categorical (e.g., 1-3 point scales), and frequency questions. The instrument often utilizes a modified Likert scale structure, though the authors noted that some initial binary items would benefit from being converted to a full Likert scale in future applications.

Language Available: English (Original publication language).

Population Group: Residents of defined geographical neighborhoods or blocks, typically studied in urban environments.

Age Group: Adults (Implied by the context of civic participation and engagement in neighborhood associations).

Population Details: The scales were originally validated using residents of specific urban neighborhoods, focusing on the social dynamics of residential blocks and the activities of block associations.

Test Methodology: Survey administration, usually conducted via structured interviews or self-completion questionnaires, designed to measure both individual perceptions and reported behavioral frequency regarding neighborhood interaction and collective action.

Keywords

Community Assessment, Neighborhood Cohesion, Urban Sociology, Citizen Engagement, Community Development, Psychological Sense of Community, Block Association.

[quads id=5]

Authors

Author ORCID Identifier: Not provided in source document.

Affiliation Email addresses: Not provided in source document (Douglas D. Perkins is affiliated with Vanderbilt University).

Correspondence Address: Not provided in source document.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The scales were developed and published in 2002 as part of a comprehensive academic chapter detailing multi-level neighborhood analysis. Information regarding current usage permissions or associated fees must be sought directly from the primary author, Douglas D. Perkins. The original academic paper outlining the methodology and scales can be downloaded here: https://my.vanderbilt.edu/perkins/files/2011/09/PerkinsLong.2002.Neighborhood_sense_of_communitysocial_capital.pdf.

Reference’s

Perkins, D.D., & Long, D.A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291-318). New York: Plenum.

[quads id=5]

Items of the Social Capital Survey Scales

Brief Sense of Community Index

Social Connections Subscale:

Instructions for items 1-5: “I am going to read some things that people might say about their block. For each one‚ please indicate whether it is mostly true or mostly false about your block” (coded 1 = “false”‚ 2 = “true”; Note: Likert scale recommended for future research).

1. Very few of my neighbors know me.
2. I have almost no influence over what this block is like.
3. I can recognize most of the people who live on my block.

Mutual Concern Subscale:

4. My neighbors and I want the same things from the block.
5. If there is a problem on this block people who live here can get it solved.
6. In general‚ would you say that people on your block watch after each other and help out when they can‚ or do they pretty much go their own way? (coded 1 = “go own way”‚ 2 = “a little of both”‚ 3 = “watch after”)

Community Values Subscale:

7. Would you say that it is very important‚ somewhat important or not important to you to feel a sense of community with the people on your block? (coded 1= “not”‚ 2= “somewhat ”‚ 3= “very”)
8. Some people say they feel like they have a sense of community with the people on their block; others don’t feel that way. How about you; would you say that you feel a strong sense of community with others on your block‚ very little sense of community or something in between? (coded 1 = “very little”‚ 2 = “in between”‚ 3 = “strong”)

Collective Efficacy Scale:

“The following are things a block association might try to do. For each one‚ indicate whether you think it is very likely‚ somewhat likely‚ or not likely that the association on your block can accomplish that goal” (coded 1 = “not likely” to 3 = “very likely”).

1. Improve physical conditions on the block like cleanliness or housing upkeep.
2. Persuade the city to provide better services to people on the block.
3. Get people on the block to help each other more.
4. Reduce crime on the block.
5. Get people who live on the block to know each other better.
6. Get information to residents about where to go for services they need.

Citizen Participation Scale:

1. Are you currently a member of the block association?
2. Have you ever taken part in an activity sponsored by the block association?
3. Thinking about work you might do for the block association outside of meetings‚ how many hours would you say you give to the association each month‚ if any?

“We would like to know what kinds of things people have done in the association. In the past year have you:”

4. Attended a meeting‚
5. Spoken up during a meeting‚
6. Done work for the organization outside of meetings‚
7. Served as a member of a committee‚
8. Served as an officer or as a committee chair?

Note: Each item was coded 1 for participation and 0 for no participation (#3 was recoded to match this scale‚ from 0 = “none” to 1 = “8 or more hours”).

Neighboring Behavior Scale:

“The following is a short list of things neighbors might do for each other. Please indicate how many times in the past year‚ you have been asked to do each one for a neighbor on this block” (coded 0 = “none”‚ 1-7 = “exact number”‚ and 8 = “eight or more”).

1. Watch a neighbor’s home while they were away.
2. Loan a neighbor some food or a tool.
3. Help a neighbor in an emergency.
4. Offer a neighbor advice on a personal problem.
5. Discuss a problem on the block with a neighbor.

• civil society
• Sense of Community