coupling social solidarity and social harmony in hong kong

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmonyin Hong Kong

Chau-kiu Cheung • Stephen Kan Ma

Accepted: 22 August 2010 / Published online: 4 September 2010� Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Abstract The various forms of social solidarity are empirically uncharted, especially in

relation to social harmony. With respect to resource exchange theory, inclusive solidarity

or intergroup acceptance is more conducive to social harmony than mechanical, organic,

distributive, and dialogic forms of solidarity. The theoretical prediction holds in the present

study that surveyed 1,093 Hong Kong Chinese. Importantly, one’s experience of inclusive

solidarity tended to contribute to one’s practice of social harmony and experience of

societal social harmony. Moreover, results show that experiences of organic, distributive,

and dialogic solidarity also appeared to induce the practice of social harmony. In contrast,

mechanical solidarity did not seem to be helpful for sustaining social harmony. Different

forms of solidarity thereby exhibit differential impacts on social harmony.

Keywords Social solidarity � Social harmony � Resource exchange theory

1 Introduction

Assessing and advancing social solidarity and social harmony are necessary for the

common mission of crafting social quality of life or flourishing (Phillips 2006; Sturm

1998). Social solidarity refers to social interaction in society to bind people together for

common interest, whereas social harmony refers to a desirable, healthy state of relation-

ships among people in society. The two concepts are differentiable because social inter-

action does not necessarily ensure relationship quality. Nevertheless, their necessity for

common concern evolves from the communitarian vision of social development (Crow

2002; Robinson 2005). This vision is particularly salient in collectivistic or socialist set-

tings, while it is also prevailing in Western societies as a countercurrent to individualism

and liberalism (Christopher 1999; Veenhoven 1998). Essentially, promoting social har-

mony or harmony in society is the official developmental ideal of China, including Hong

Kong (Ho and Chan 2009; Pramod 2008). A clue to the promotion would center on social

C. Cheung (&) � S. K. MaCity University of Hong Kong, Kowloon, Hong Konge-mail: [email protected]

123

Soc Indic Res (2011) 103:145–167DOI 10.1007/s11205-010-9702-8

solidarity, in view of the stronghold of theoretical and research traditions underlying social

theory, such as mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity (Durkheim 1893; Lockwood

1992). The traditions originated to tackle problems of social disharmony, or its manifes-

tations as anomie and alienation. In their progression, the traditions have unfolded five

forms of social solidarity, including distributive solidarity, inclusive solidarity, and dia-

logic solidarity, in addition to the older forms. Their assessment, particularly in relation to

social harmony, is an empirical void that summons the present study. Accordingly, the

study aims to clarify the conceptualization of social solidarity and its relationship with

social harmony, which are experiences or practices reported by Hong Kong Chinese. The

study specifically examines the uncharted relationships between the five forms of social

solidarity and social harmony demonstrated by oneself and society. Viewed thoroughly, the

relationships examined include the (1) contributions of social solidarity to social harmony,

(2) contributions of social harmony to social solidarity, (3) contribution of one’s social

harmony to societal social harmony, (4) contribution of societal social harmony to one’s

social contribution, and (5) impacts of social class on social harmony and social solidarity.

These relationships are explainable in a parsimonious and pervasive way by resource

exchange theory.

The import of studying and thus championing social solidarity and social harmony

primarily rests on communitarian and allied philosophies and research findings. Com-

munitarianism holds that people are capable of, voluntary for, engaged in, and benefiting

from socializing, social interaction, connection, interdependence, responsibility, even love

for each other (Sturm 1998; Woolcock and Narayan 2000). Essentially, such communi-

tarian practice is beneficial to all people involved, as it is not a zero-sum game (Sturm

1998). Opposites to social solidarity and social harmony, including anomie and alienation,

are undesirable and dysfunctional as they deviate from human nature (Devine and Roberts

2003; Stewart 1989; Sturm 1998). Communitarianism or communitarian practice is also

meritorious for establishing moral order and caring in the community to safeguard healthy

and quality life (Robinson 2005). The philosophical basis for communitarianism in turn

rests on the premises that people develop their values, notably the virtues of solidarity and

loyalty, before making their personal choices and they are susceptible to conditioning in

the community (Ellis et al. 2006). An instance is the young child’s affiliation with his or

her parent. These premises imply that community influence precedes and takes primacy

over individualistic, liberal action. The import of communitarianism in turn lies in its

facilitation of support for policy for the commonwealth of the community (Schlesinger

1997). In addition, communitarianism is important for delineating and upholding morality,

and is functional to the maintenance of order and even innovation, and good society as a

whole (Etzioni 1996; Frazer 1999; Lee 1996). Accordingly, so long as morality hinges on

social relationships and commonwealth, morality needs to take root in a community, where

communitarianism applies and prevails.

Social solidarity and social harmony are also important because of their functions or

benefits. In theory, they are helpful in maintaining political stability and economic growth

(Berger 2002; Maloutas and Maloutas 2004). Social solidarity and social harmony are

therefore worth investment, and their leverage is attributable to their reduction of trans-

action cost (Stanley and Smeltzer 2003). Furthermore, the investment is valuable in

boosting the return to social capital, characterized by potentially helpful social relation-

ships (Dayton-Johnson 2003). Social capital is distinguishable from social solidarity and

social harmony in that the former is the social resource drawn from social networks,

whereas the latter are experiences and practices generating resources in society (Crow

2002; Friedkin 2004; Ostrom 2009). However, although social solidarity and social

146 C. Cheung, S. K. Ma

123

harmony are not social resources from which one draws benefits in an instrumental way,

social solidarity and social harmony are salutary in a social or intrinsic way (Kawachi and

Berkman 2001; Mullins and Dugan 1991). The salutary effect is justified by humanist

theory, which posits that social solidarity and harmony are integral to human nature and

therefore conducive to human well-being (Sheldon and Kasser 2001).

Social solidarity and social harmony are of contemporary concern because of the ori-

entation of public policy in both Chinese and Western societies (Chan and Chan 2006; Ho

and Chan 2009; Kearns and Forrest 2000; White 2003). Such policy aims to tackle

problems of socioeconomic inequality, social fragmentation, and decline in morality

(Duhaime et al. 2004; Forrest and Kearns 2001; Maloutas and Maloutas 2004). Hence, the

policy informs education, propaganda, and community building for the promotion of social

solidarity and social harmony in the West and China (Brady 2009; Crow 2002; Green et al.

2003; Pramod 2008). Of particular policy concern is the impact of social class on social

harmony and solidarity, given the assumption that poorer or lower-class people experience

and practice a lower extent of social harmony and solidarity (Ho and Chan 2009; Letki

2008). The assumption prompts the examination of class differences in social harmony and

solidarity as a basis for targeting policies to the segment in society that requires the

restoration of social harmony and solidarity.

1.1 Pentangular View of Social Solidarity

Remarkably, social solidarity demonstrates its importance through substantial traditions in

social theory and research. The traditions have identified five forms of social solidarity,

pertaining to mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive, and dialogic ones (see Table 1).

This typology is a product of a wealth of works epitomized in some latest theoretical

treatises (Calhoun 2002; Crow 2002; Duhaime et al. 2004; Houtman 2000; Sturm 1998;

Wilson 2006). It expands the original, functionalist typology, which differentiates

mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity (Durkheim 1893). Mechanical solidarity is the

sharing of ideas, beliefs, values, norms, and teachings among people to reach a consensus.

It has a long history, probably salient in feudal or traditional societies, through the

preaching of religion, education, family sanctioning, and other means of socialization. The

sharing of norms in mechanical solidarity in effect creates a culture for people that

becomes institutionalized and enduring. This form of solidarity and reflects functionalist

theory such that the sharing of norms would consistently contribute to the common

functioning of the whole (Kingsbury and Scanzoni 1993; Siisiainen 2003). Mechanical

Table 1 Conceptualization of social solidarity

Ingredient Mechanical Organic Distributive Inclusive Dialogic

Object Idea Work Resource Affection Idea

Action Agreeing Production Consumption Socializing Conversation

Theory Functionalist Functionalist Materialist Interactionist Critical

System Culture Economy Polity Community Community

Policy Education Trading Welfare Civil Media

Principle Consensus Complementarity Equality Commonality Plurality

Resource Agreement Collaboration Material Acceptance Understanding

Coupling Social Solidarity and Social Harmony in Hong Kong 147

123

solidarity is most notable in the form of team spirit, when all members uphold the same

goal (Burroughs and Eby 1998). This form of solidarity hinges on the principle of con-

sensus, which regards dissent or inconsistency as divisive and counterproductive (Swenson

2004). However, division can be the condition for the second form of solidarity, organic

solidarity, which relies on the division of labor. Collaboration instead of consensus on

ideas and values is the glue to reach solidarity. This is a more modern form of solidarity

than the mechanical one and is a crux of capitalist production. The economy, business, or

work sector or organization is the major field for the operation of organic solidarity. This

solidarity relies on the automatic adjustment of the parts, even without a common norm or

regulation. It reflects functionalist theory such that the parts help each other in the

maintenance of the whole. This is the manifestation in trading in which partners exchange

resources to securing mutual benefits. The principle of complementarity applies to organic

solidarity to realize the mutual benefits (Lane 1991). The analogy to an organism is

relevant to describe the collaborative workings of each of the organs for the survival and

functioning of the organism.

Distributive solidarity means equal access to resources, principally based on govern-

ment or public provision. The solidarity has a basis on materialist theory, which posits the

primacy of livelihood, as emphasized by Marx and Engels (Crow 2002). Consumption or

satisfaction of basic needs for livelihood is the crucial concern for maintaining distrib-

utive solidarity. This solidarity requires and commonly leads to the welfare policy for the

supply of social welfare to divert discontent (Kearns and Forrest 2000; Sturm 1998). Such

discontent, provoked by inequality, industrialization, capitalism, and class consciousness,

demands the government to distribute or redistribute resources to citizens (Crow 2002;

Wilson 2006). Such solidarity does not require absolute equality in resource distribution,

as it hinges on the distribution of resources and opportunities in a fair way to lessen

inequality (Green et al. 2003; Stanley 2003). Moreover, inclusive solidarity distribute

symbolic feelings such as affection and friendliness and rather than material resources,

when it aims to eliminate discrimination. Inclusive solidarity or social inclusion means

interacting and accepting people across groups in community or civil society (Turner

et al. 2007). This solidarity builds on the emphasis of symbolic-interactionist theory on

facilitating social interaction through the sharing and circulation of symbolic meaning

(SunWolf 2008; Turner 1988). A valuable symbol for social inclusion is a shared identity

(Levine et al. 2005). Thus, social inclusion is conducive to building a common identity or

commonality across groups for resisting prejudice and discrimination (Esses et al. 2001;

Turner et al. 2008). Rather than creating common symbolic meaning, dialogic solidarity

simply applies the symbolic tool of language to facilitate communication across parties in

society. Achieving mutual understanding through communication is the principal goal of

dialogic solidarity (Ellis et al. 2006). This solidarity is vital for societal integration

according to critical theory or communicative action theory in particular (Braaten 1991;

Habermas 1981). Accordingly, communicative action, aimed at securing mutual under-

standing, is the norm and glue for social order and progress. The main tool for com-

municative action is validation, in comprehending messages, and identifying legitimacy,

sincerity, and truthfulness of the messages communicated. Communicative action does

not need to ensure a consensus, as it allows for difference or plurality. This is the stand of

multiculturalism and feminism (Hulse and Stone 2007; Sturm 1998). As such, dialogic

solidarity preserves the value of each party in society (Sturm 1998). Dialogic solidarity

also presupposes an ideal speech situation, which is free of oppression and power

differential.


123

1.2 Contributions of Social Solidarity to Social Harmony

Resource theory or specifically resource exchange theory provides a parsimonious

explanation for the contributions of the five forms of social solidarity to social harmony.

The theory principally maintains that exchanges of similar resources are normative and

satisfactory (Foa et al. 1993; Tornblom and Vermunt 2007). Essentially, the theory

delimits resources to six kinds, love, service, goods, money, information, and status, with

varying degrees of particularism and concreteness. Like exchange theory in general,

resource exchange theory upholds the principles of reciprocity and fairness, which

underlie the need for exchange. These principles mandate that one needs to reciprocate

resources of a similar kind in exchange for resources received. With respect to the theory,

a common thrust of the five forms of social solidarity is the tendering of resources of

various kinds. The resources are others’ agreement from mechanical solidarity, collabo-

ration from organic solidarity, materials from distributive solidarity, acceptance from

inclusive solidarity, and understanding from dialogic solidarity (see Table 1). Translated

into the terms in resource exchange theory, agreement and understanding represent

information, collaboration represents service, materials represent goods and money, and

acceptance reflects love. In exchange, social harmony by persons who experience social

solidarity and obtain its provided resources is a response to the solidarity. Social harmony

means a positive social relationship involving tolerance and love (Hwang 2000). With

respect to resource exchange theory which posits the exchange of the same kind of

resources, social harmony is most likely a response to inclusive solidarity for exchanging

love. Such exchange would happen in the one who experiences social solidarity and other

people in society supposed to experience the solidarity as well. The contribution of social

solidarity to social harmony is consistent with existing research findings (Ho and Chan

2009; Ridgeway and Johnson 1990). In particular, those findings about the contributions

of experiences with tolerance, interdependence, and grouping champion the merit of

inclusive solidarity. Additionally, mutual support and public welfare are also contributors

to social harmony, in line with the functions of organic solidarity and distributive soli-

darity. The following hypotheses reflect the view that social harmony is a response to

social solidarity.

Hypothesis 1. Social solidarity (including its mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive

and dialogic forms) contributes to social harmony (by one or society).

Hypothesis 1.1. Inclusive solidarity particularly contributes to social harmony (by one or

society).

1.3 Contributions of Social Harmony to Social Solidarity

Resource exchange theory again anticipates the contribution of social harmony to social

solidarity such that the solidarity is an exchange response to the harmony. Accordingly,

inputs of various resources would help the maintenance of social solidarity, which facil-

itates the return of resources. Existing research findings have found that people’s tolerance,

sociability, friendship, and organizational involvement contribute to social solidarity in

general (Houtman 2000; Letki 2008). These characteristics can represent alternative

indicators of social harmony. Moreover, cooperation as an instance of organic solidarity, is

partly a response to cooperation expected (Mulford et al. 1998). This response is a

reflection of exchange, as envisioned by resource exchange theory. Similarly, aid given,

including volunteer service, is also likely a response to aid received (Molm 2006; Wilson


123

2000). This may reflect the formation process of distributive solidarity in sharing goods

and services. Another instance of the exchange effect is in friendship making and even

marriage, as a result of positive social contact (Rosenfield 2005; SunWolf 2008). Social

harmony is particularly a supposed way to enhance tolerance or social inclusion (Weiss-

berg 2008). All these would present cases in the formation of inclusive solidarity. Hence,

the following hypothesis is suitable.

Hypothesis 2. Social harmony (by one or society) contributes to social solidarity

(including its mechanical, organic, distributive, inclusive and dialogic

forms).

1.4 Reciprocal Influences Between One’s and Societal Social Harmony

Resource exchange theory can have a further application to the prediction of reciprocal

influences between one’s and societal practices of social harmony. Accordingly, one and

others in society are engaged in an exchange of harmonious practice. One is therefore

likely to show social harmony as the reciprocation of social harmony tendered by other

people in society. However, the social harmony of society as a whole may not be so easily

susceptible to a single person’s social harmony, because of influence by many other

people. The hypothesized influence is thus mainly from the masses’ social harmony to a

single person’s social harmony, rather than vice versa.

3. Societal social harmony contributes to one’s social solidarity.

1.5 Social Class and Background Impacts

The impacts of social class and other background characteristics on social harmony and

social solidarity are relevant to public policy as well. Social class, in a generalized way,

reflects a person social position based on production and consumption, according to the

integration of Marxian and Weberian approaches (Baugher 2003; Wright 1997). The

production component of social class primarily consists in productive relations, which

involve employers, employees, self-employed, unemployed, and non-employed (e.g.,

homemakers or students) persons. In addition, the consumption component of social class

commonly involves income, including personal income and family income, and family

expense, notably on food (Joassart-Marcelli 2005). The usual expectation is that social

class is conducive to social solidarity and social harmony (Letki 2008). However, the

opposite view is that because people of higher class have more substitutes for social

relationships, they would have lower social solidarity and harmony (Sharabany 1994).

Besides, background characteristics may affect both social solidarity and harmony. Such

influences on such experience and practice can emanate from age, education, marriage,

and being a native and nonreligious person (Erickson 2004; Healy et al. 2007; Letki 2008;

Shapiro and Keyes 2008). The social experience and practice may also decline or increase

with time, according to different studies (Hawdon et al. 2000; McPherson et al. 2006). In

the former case, social solidarity and harmony may be higher in a person surveyed at an

earlier time. Background characteristics are at least necessary to be control variables to

highlight the net effects of social solidarity and harmony. In the prediction of social

harmony, social harmony of the past year is also an important control variable to reveal

changes due to social solidarity and other predictors.


123

1.6 Uniqueness and Relevance of Hong Kong

A study in Hong Kong may offer insights concerning the coupling of social harmony and

solidarity for other metropolises, in view of their similarities with and dissimilarities from

Hong Kong. Their similarities include economic development, the Western form of

sociopolitical systems, globalization, and Manhattanization (Cartier 2008; Forrest et al.

2004; Tsang 1999). As such, Hong Kong is susceptible to as well as influential on other

global cities (Ho and Chan 2009; Hoover and Stokes 2003). Nevertheless, Hong Kong is

typically different from other global cities in cultural tradition and geographic properties

(Kuan and Lau 2002). Hong Kong accordingly still shares some Chinese cultural tradition

and close relationships with other Chinese and East Asian places (Estes 2005). Importantly,

Hong Kong also has some features that may moderate the coupling of social harmony and

solidarity. Such features include income inequality, racial homogeneity, and living density

(Green et al. 2003; Letki 2008; Schulenberg 2003). When the influences from these fea-

tures are strong, they may preempt other influences on social harmony and solidarity.

These features are all exceptionally high in Hong Kong (Chiu and Lui 2004; La Grange

and Pretorius 2002). Hence, social harmony and solidarity may be less predictable in Hong

Kong than in other places. Hong Kong then enables a conservative test regarding the

coupling of social harmony and solidarity.

2 Methods

From 2008 to 2009, a random-sample telephone survey collected data from 1,093 Hong

Kong Chinese adults, aged 18 or above. The sampling frame for the initial step of random

sampling was all household telephone numbers in Hong Kong. With each household

contacted through the randomly selected telephone numbers, the next step of random

sampling select an adult member randomly, using the most-recent-birthday method

(Salmon and Nichols 1983). The telephone survey took place in weekday evenings, con-

ducted by trained interviewers recruited from a university. This survey yielded a response

rate of 34.7%, which fell within the usual range from 25 to 50% in other telephone surveys

(Keeter et al. 2006).

The major sample characteristics were as follows. Regarding demographic character-

istics, the respondents had an average age of 40.8 years, 57.2% of them being women,

56.1% being married, 39.2% being never married, 64.0% being nonreligious, and 74.4

being locally born (see Table 2). Their major social class characteristic was being an

employee (59.2%). In contrast, few of them were unemployed, self-employed, employers

only, or both employers and employees. People who were both employers and employees

were upper-middle class people who afforded to employ others, such as domestic helpers.

They were different from people who were purely employers or capitalists, in terms of

experience with productive relation. On average, food expense accounted for 24.4% of

family income. The higher the share of food expense, the worse the social class position

would be (Joassart-Marcelli 2005).

2.1 Measurement

Measures of the five forms of social solidarity, social harmony by oneself and society each

employed multiple indicators. These indicators were all rating items interspersed within the

three sections in the questionnaire to minimize anchor and contrast effects between


123

adjacent items of similar content (Tourangeau et al. 2000). One section included items

about social solidarity experienced in the recent 6 months. Another section contained items

about social harmony practiced by oneself and other people in society in the recent month.

A third section comprised items about social harmony practiced by oneself and other

people in society in the previous year. The items contained both positively phrased and

negatively phrased to minimize the bias due to the acquiescence response set. Responses to

the items ranged from ‘‘very little’’ to ‘‘very much,’’ on a five-point scale. These items

were adapted from various sources, including those for social harmony (Harpham et al.

2002; Noronha 2002) and social solidarity (Leach et al. 2008; Lowenstein and Daatland

2006; Scott et al. 1989). Each set of the multiple indicators formed a composite measure by

means of factor analysis, which was also useful for partialling out the effect of the

acquiescence response set. Because of the use of factor analysis, all composite measures

had a mean of 0 and standard deviation of 1.

2.1.1 Social Harmony by Oneself

A measure was about social harmony in the recent month, and another was about social

harmony in the previous year. Each of the two measures had six items. The positively

phrased items were ‘‘Conversing with strangers harmoniously;’’ ‘‘Forgiving others in

socializing;’’ ‘‘Going along harmoniously with people of different backgrounds.’’ In

addition, the negatively phrased and inversely scored items were ‘‘Refusing to help

strangers;’’ ‘‘Offending strangers;’’ and ‘‘Being in disharmony with people in society.’’ The

composite reliability coefficients were .618 and .595 for one’s practice of social harmony

Table 2 Means and standarddeviations

Scoring M SD

Age Years 40.8 17.5

Female 0, 100 57.2 49.5

Never married 0, 100 39.3 48.9

Divorced/separated 0, 100 2.2 14.7

Married 0, 100 56.1 49.7

Widowed 0, 100 2.3 15.0

Family size Persons 2.8 1.4

Nonreligious 0, 100 64.0 48.0

Education Years 10.6 4.4

Residency Years 34.3 16.5

Locally born 0, 100 74.4 43.6

Survey time Years 2,008.6 0.5

Monthly income US$ 466.7 2,002.5

Monthly family income per capita US$ 570.0 1,226.6

Employer only 0, 100 5.8 23.4

Employee only 0, 100 59.2 49.2

Both employer and employee 0, 100 2.3 15.0

Self-employed 0, 100 2.2 14.7

Unemployed 0, 100 1.5 12.3

Not in employment 0, 100 29.0 45.4

Food expense portion % 24.4 17.6


123

in the recent month and previous year respectively, based on the logic of factor analysis

(Bollen 1989; Raykov and Grayson 2003).

2.1.2 Societal Social Harmony

A measure was about social harmony perceived in Hong Kong society in the recent month,

and another was about social harmony in the previous year. Each of the two measures had

six items. The positively phrased items were ‘‘People in society helping each other;’’

‘‘People in society tolerating each other;’’ ‘‘Harmony in society.’’ In addition, the nega-

tively phrased and inversely scored items were ‘‘People in society rowing with each

other;’’ ‘‘Fragmentation in society;’’ and ‘‘Conflict in society.’’ The composite reliability

coefficients were .663 and .740 for current for societal social harmony in the recent month

and previous year respectively.

2.1.3 Mechanical Solidarity

Six items combined to measure mechanical solidarity. The positively phrased items were

‘‘Sharing the same beliefs with neighbors;’’ ‘‘Sharing the same beliefs with government

officials;’’ and ‘‘Sharing the same beliefs with the younger generation.’’ In addition, the

negatively phrased and inversely scored items were ‘‘Having conflicts with the elder

generation about beliefs;’’ ‘‘Having conflicts with the mass media about beliefs;’’ and

‘‘Having conflicts with the masses in society about beliefs.’’ The composite reliability

coefficient was .597.

2.1.4 Organic Solidarity

Six items combined to measure organic solidarity. The positively phrased items were

‘‘Collaborating with others to complete something;’’ ‘‘Helping each other in practice;’’ and

‘‘Complementing each other in practice.’’ In addition, the negatively phrased and inversely

scored items were ‘‘Competing with others;’’ ‘‘Having practices destroyed by others;’’ and

‘‘Having conflicts with others’ practice.’’ The composite reliability coefficient was .632.

2.1.5 Distributive Solidarity

Six items combined to measure distributive solidarity. The positively phrased items were

‘‘Sharing public venues (e.g., parks, swimming pools) with others;’’ ‘‘Enjoying the same

life as others’;’’ and ‘‘Having something that the majority in society have.’’ In addition, the

negatively phrased and inversely scored items were ‘‘Envying others’ belongings;’’

‘‘Living harder than others;’’ and ‘‘Not affording a life that the average person has.’’ The

composite reliability coefficient was .714.

2.1.6 Inclusive Solidarity

Five items combined to measure inclusive solidarity. The positively phrased items were

‘‘Socializing with people of high social status;’’ ‘‘Socializing with people of different

strata;’’ and ‘‘Socializing with people of different backgrounds.’’ In addition, the negatively

phrased and inversely scored items were ‘‘Being rejected in society;’’ and ‘‘Being isolated

in society.’’ The composite reliability coefficient was .664.


123

2.1.7 Dialogic Solidarity

Five items combined to measure dialogic solidarity. The positively phrased items were

‘‘Communicating with people of higher status;’’ ‘‘Communicating with people of lower

status;’’ and ‘‘Communicating with the mass media.’’ In addition, the negatively phrased

and inversely scored items were ‘‘Having opinions ignored by others;’’ and ‘‘Having

difficulties in communicating with people in society.’’ The composite reliability coefficient

was .558.

2.1.8 Acquiescence

A composite measure combining all rating items indicated the acquiescence response

tendency. It had a higher score when the ratings of all items were consistently higher,

regardless of the content and phrasing of the items. This measure was useful as a control

variable to minimize bias due to rating (Zagorski 1999).

2.2 Analytic Procedure

Structural equation modeling via Mplus was useful for examining relationships and testing

hypotheses based on a holistic model, especially required when they involved reciprocal

relationships and emergent variables (Cohen et al. 1990; Muthen and Muthen 2006). The

basic holistic model (Model 1) regarded social harmony and social solidarity as endoge-

nous variables and specified their structural equations, also including background char-

acteristics as exogenous predictors. Hence, there were nine structural equations for

predicting the four social harmony and five social solidarity variables. This model did not

specify reciprocal influences between social harmony of oneself and society in the recent

month. In contrast, another model (Model 2) estimated such reciprocal influences by using

social harmony of oneself and society in the previous year as instrumental variables (see

Fig. 1). Accordingly, the model regarded social harmony of oneself in the previous year as

Background characteristics Age, gender, education, never married, nonreligious, locally born, residency, social class, acquiescence, survey time

Societal social harmony, past

year

Social harmony, oneself, past year

Social solidarity Mechanical Organic Distributive Inclusive Dialogic

Social harmony, oneself

Societal social

harmony

Fig. 1 Schematic analytic model with reciprocal effects (Model 2)


123

a predictor of social harmony of oneself in the recent month but not as a predictor of

societal social harmony in the recent month. Similarly, the model held societal social

harmony in the previous year as a predictor of the same harmony in the recent month but

not as a predictor of social harmony of oneself in the recent month. For examining the

effect of social class as a whole, structural equation modeling identified emergent or

induced variables (i.e., not latent variables) (Alwin 1988; Cohen et al. 1990). The emergent

variable was effectively an aggregate of social class indicators, including income, family

income per capita, being an employer, employee, both employer and employee, self-

employed, unemployed, and food expense as a proportion of family income. Such an effect

was the sheaf coefficient in the convention of regression analysis (Heise 1972). By

imposing constraints, structural equation modeling could estimate one single sheaf effect

on any combinations of social harmony and solidarity.

3 Results

Correlations among indicators of social harmony and solidarity revealed that these indi-

cators were distinct from each other (see Table 3). The strongest correlation (r = .599),

was that between inclusive solidarity and dialogic solidarity. This correlation was not

overly strong to indicate redundancy in the two forms of solidarity. Regarding the five

forms of solidarity, confirmatory factor analysis did not favor a single-factor model,

because of the inadequate fit of the factor model (L2(5) = 115, SRMR = .067,

RMSEA = .142, CFI = .878).1 To manifest a fit, the standardized root-mean-square

residual (SRMR) should be less than .05, the root-mean-square of approximation error

(RMSEA) should be less than .07, and the Comparative Goodness-of-Fit Index (CFI)

should be greater than .95 (Hu and Bentler 1999). The inadequate fit suggested that the five

forms of social solidarity did not represent a single dimension. Nevertheless, factors

loadings of the five forms ranged from .276 to .759, showing that they were indicators of

social solidarity in general. This general social solidarity, however, was not an adequate

representation of the five indicators. In sum, the indicators of social harmony and solidarity

were preferably separate variables for subsequent analyses.

Subsequent analyses were the fitting of Models 1 and 2 by structural equation modeling.

The fit was perfect for Model 1, because this was a saturated model with no degree of

freedom. Similarly, the fit of Model 2 was close to perfect (L2(1) = 19, SRMR = .004,

RMSEA = .128, CFI = .994). Model 2 had one degree of freedom, because it was

unreasonable to estimate the residual correlation between social harmony by oneself and

by society, given their reciprocal effects. The very good fit of the models warranted the

credibility of estimated effects in the models.

1 The single-factor model was unsuitable because the factor loadings of three of the five forms of solidaritywere lower than .30. Although a two-factor model with oblimin rotation showed a good fit (p = .517), thefactor loadings of mechanical and distributive solidarity on one were lower than .30, when organic solidaritywas the only one having a strong loading on another factor. The low factor loadings suggested the inade-quacy of the two-factor model. A three-factor model was also unfavorable because organic solidarity hadhigh loadings on two of the three factors. Furthermore, a four-factor model was unfavorable because none ofthe solidarity indicators loaded highly on the fourth factor. Hence, none of the factors models was empir-ically and theoretically sound.


123

3.1 Predicting Social Harmony

Four of the five indicators of social solidarity during the previous 6 months were signif-

icant positive predictors of social harmony practiced by oneself in the recent month (see

Table 4). The significant solidarity indicators were inclusive solidarity, distributive soli-

darity, dialogic solidarity, and organic solidarity in a descending order of effect. The

significant effects held in both Models 1 and 2, with and without reciprocal influences

between social harmony by oneself and society. Both models also included and thereby

controlled for previous social harmony and background characteristics. These significant

findings were supportive of Hypothesis 1. Furthermore, the strongest positive effect of

inclusive solidarity lent support to Hypothesis 1.1 (b = .134 or .117). In contrast,

mechanical solidarity was not significant in predicting social harmony by oneself.

Inclusive solidarity was also significantly predictive of societal social harmony expe-

rienced during the recent month (b = .135 or .138, see Table 4). This finding was in line

with Hypothesis 1 and particularly supportive of Hypothesis 1.1. In contrast, the other four

forms of social solidarity during the previous 6 months were not significant predictors of

societal social harmony. Hence, whereas Hypothesis 1.1 received consistent support

regarding social harmony by oneself and society, Hypothesis 1 attained most support only

with respect to social harmony by oneself. By contrast, mechanical solidarity failed to be a

significant predictor of social harmony by oneself or society. Mechanical solidarity was

clearly not a predicator in line with Hypothesis 1.

Societal social harmony was significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself, when

both happened in the recent month (b = .133, see Model 2 in Table 4). The effect held

with the control for prior social harmony, social solidarity, and background characteristics.

This finding was supportive of Hypothesis 3. Similarly, societal social harmony in the

previous year was also significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself (b = .080, see

Model 1 in Table 4). In contrast, social harmony by oneself was not significantly predictive

of societal social harmony (b = .031 and .005, see Models 1 and 2 in Table 4). Hence, the

counterpart of Hypothesis 3, which transposed causal roles in the two forms of social

harmony, did not find support.

Other significant predictors of social harmony in the recent month included corre-

sponding social harmony in the previous year. In addition, being never married, family

size, and low income were significant predictors of the experience of societal social

Table 3 Correlations

Correlate Mechanicalsolidarity

Organicsolidarity

Distributivesolidarity

Inclusivesolidarity

Dialogicsolidarity

Harmony:self

Mechanical 1.000

Organic .261 1.000

Distributive .130 .372 1.000

Inclusive .201 .243 .327 1.000

Dialogic .185 .274 .301 .599 1.000

Harmony: self .141 .377 .283 .254 .233 1.000

Societal harmony .123 .210 .050� .023� -.006� .301

� p [ .05; otherwise, p \ .05


123

harmony, but not social harmony by oneself. Their effects, even if significant, were quite

negligible (b \ .10, see Table 4). Hence, background characteristics posed little influence

on social harmony by oneself and society.

3.2 Predicting Social Solidarity

Social harmony by oneself during the previous year was significantly predictive of all the

five forms of social solidarity during the previous 6 months (b = .128–.335, see Table 5).

Table 4 Standardized effects on social harmony

Predictor Harmony: self Societal harmony

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Mechanical solidarity -.008 -.011 .048 .049

Organic solidarity .065* .066* .015 .021

Distributive solidarity .070** .073** -.034 -.031

Inclusive solidarity .134*** .117*** .135*** .138***

Dialogic solidarity .062* .069* -.036 -.035

Harmony: self, past year .452*** .456*** .031 –

Societal harmony, past year .080** – .368*** .374***

Acquiescence -.130*** -.069* -.428*** -.436***

Age -.081 -.080 .005 .003

Female .036 .040 -.015 -.015

Never married -.024 -.030 .070* .069*

Divorced/separated -.009 -.007 -.021 -.021

Family size .011 .001 .089*** .088***

Nonreligious .026 .024 .022 .020

Education .005 .006 -.030 -.031

Residency .067 .068 -.013 -.012

Locally born -.040 -.033 -.052 -.052

Survey time .002 .002 .002 .002

Income -.036 -.026 -.071* -.071*

Family income per capita -.034 -.033 -.004 -.005

Employer only .000 -.001 -.002 -.002

Employee only .007 .000 .045 .046

Both employer and employee -.040 -.040 -.005 -.006

Self-employed .025 .025 .002 .002

Unemployed -.007 -.001 -.043 -.042

Food expense portion -.028 -.032 .017 .016

Societal harmony – .133** – –

Harmony: self – – – .005

R2 .401 .409 .322 .322

Model 1 did not specify reciprocal effects between one’s social harmony and others’ social harmony,whereas Model 2 specified the reciprocal effects

Reference categories were being female, married, non-locally born, and not in employment

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001


123

Moreover, societal social harmony in the previous year was significantly predictive of four

of the five forms of social solidarity (b = .082–.172, see Table 5). The effects held with

the control for background characteristics. These effects were in line with those stated in

Hypothesis 2, and this hypothesis therefore obtained support. Only distributive solidarity

did not significantly predictable by societal social harmony.

Other significant predictors of social solidarity included education, family income per

capita, not being unemployed, being self-employed, being both an employer and employee,

and not being an employee only. These predictors, nevertheless, did not exhibit a signif-

icant effect on the five forms of social solidarity consistently. The strongest and most

consistent effect sprang from education, which was significant on distributive, inclusive,

and dialogic solidarity.

3.3 Social Class Effects

Social class effects referred to the combination of effects of income, family income per

capita, being an employer, employee, both employer and employee, and self-employed,

unemployed, and food expense as proportion of family income. The unconstrained effects

were those obtained by estimating each social class effect in a separate model, whereas

Table 5 Standardized effects on social solidarity

Predictor Mechanical Organic Distributive Inclusive Dialogic

Harmony: self, past year .128*** .335*** .261*** .242*** .223***

Societal harmony, past year .172*** .130*** .006 .082** .109***

Acquiescence .119*** -.127*** -.006 .409*** .304***

Age -.026 .044 .029 -.113* -.150**

Female .078* .027 .011 -.001 -.085**

Never married -.062 -.063 .035 .005 -.057

Divorced/separated .036 .017 -.047 .013 .004

Family size -.006 -.020 -.060* .019 .022

Nonreligious -.038 -.003 .037 .023 .018

Education -.028 .027 .123*** .102** .127***

Residency .018 -.073 .031 .062 .043

Locally born -.059 .022 .033 .038 .028

Survey time .001 -.001 .001 .000 -.001

Income .009 -.001 .016 .029 -.007

Family income per capita -.038 .065* .145*** .111 .067*

Employer only -.012 -.049 -.061 .014 .019

Employee only -.026 -.019 -.134*** -.014 -.009

Both employer and employee .028 .030 -.008 .054* .059*

Self-employed -.007 .061 .089** .007 .031

Unemployed -.062* -.068* -.049 -.030 -.062*

Food expense portion .013 .009 -.022 -.021 .025

R2 .095 .208 .143 .313 .243

Estimates came from Model 2

Reference categories were being female, married, non-locally born, and not in employment

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001


123

constrained effects were those obtained by estimating all social class effects in one model.

In other words, constrained effects were those from a single emergent variable to represent

one social class, whereas unconstrained effects were those multiple emergent variables to

represent multiple ways to form a social class. With reference to the unconstrained effects,

social class was significantly predictive of social harmony by oneself during the previous

year and all the five form of social solidarity (see Table 6). Alternatively, the constrained

effect of social class was significant on distributive, inclusive, organic solidarity, and

dialogic. As a whole, the constrained effect of social class on social solidarity in general

was significant (b = .106, see Table 6). This effect typically reflected that the experience

of social solidarity was higher in one with higher income, being both an employer and

employee, and being self-employed rather than being unemployed. Such class effect

seemed to be comparable to that of education on social solidarity (compare with Table 5).

In contrast, social class did not make a significant difference in social harmony in general.

4 Discussion

Support for Hypothesis 1 is clear in terms of the significant contributions of various forms

of social solidarity on one’s practice of social harmony. Particularly, Hypothesis 1.1

receives full support when inclusive solidarity is the stronger predictor of social harmony

by oneself and other people in society. Hypothesis 2 attains support in view of the sig-

nificant contributions of earlier social harmony by oneself and society on the various forms

of social solidarity. The finding about the contribution of societal social harmony to social

harmony by oneself lends support to Hypothesis 3. Hence, all the hypotheses muster

support from findings, and they in turn illustrate the explaining power of resource exchange

theory. In light of the theory, social harmony and solidarity provide resources for

exchange, according to the principles of reciprocity and fairness. When one gets resources

from the experience of social solidarity, one is obliged to return resources in the form of

social harmony. The pertinent resource for fair exchange common in both social solidarity

and social harmony tend to be social in nature, comprising social support, acceptance, or

love. Hence, when inclusive solidarity particularly renders such a social resource, it is most

likely to trigger harmonious social behavior in return. Also based on the exchange

Table 6 Standardized effects ofsocial class

* p \ .05; ** p \ .01;*** p \ .001

Outcome Unconstrained Constrained

Social harmony: self, recent month .067 .041

Societal harmony, recent month .074 .055

Social harmony: self, past year .094* .009

Societal social harmony, past year .113 .034

Mechanical solidarity .081* .011

Organic solidarity .122* .085**

Distributive solidarity .218*** .210***

Inclusive solidarity .152*** .135***

Dialogic solidarity .114* .076*

Any one of social harmony andsolidarity

– .048

Any one of social harmony – .030

Any one of social solidarity – .106**


123

principles, social harmony would foster or perpetuate social solidarity and social harmony

itself. Essentially, social harmony propagated in society would initiate one’s social har-

mony practice in return. Generation of social harmony and social solidarity therefore

engages in a virtuous circle, according to resource exchange theory.

Deviating from the general prediction of resource exchange theory are findings that

mechanical solidarity did not significantly contribute to social harmony and only inclusive

solidarity was significantly predictive of social harmony created in society. The former

finding most simply echoes the thesis of modernization about the declining binding force

of mechanical solidarity, proposed by Durkheim and others (Calhoun 2002; Durkheim

1893). In this connection, modernization means detraditionalization, secularization, and

the erosion of common beliefs, values, and virtues. Specifically, industrialization and the

corporation replace families and other traditional institutions and lead to smaller com-

partments including individuals. Individualization, egoism, and desire for distinctiveness

easily take the place of tradition for motivating social action (Brewer and Pierce 2005;

Godoy et al. 2007; Mastain 2007; Portes 1998). The new or current form of institutionalism

and its culture for sustaining social order, therefore, do not rely on a consensus (Beck et al.

1994). Meanwhile, normative consensus is difficult to take root in modern urban society

(Schulenberg 2003). Reduction in norms and consensus also tends to be a concomitant of

decline in authoritarianism (Mouffe 1999). All these trends explain the irrelevance of

mechanical solidarity. In contrast, only inclusive solidarity appears to be conducive to both

the individual’s and societal social harmony. This is mostly in line with resource exchange

theory about the important exchange of similar affection. Furthermore, the theory states that

exchange of particularistic resources such as affection or acceptance especially follows the

rule of reciprocity (Tornblom and Nilsson 1993). This statement of the theory would also

explain the unimportance of exchange of other resources, offered by organic, distributive,

and dialogic solidarity for maintaining societal social harmony. Besides, the contribution of

social solidarity to societal harmony is less salient than that to the individual practice of

social harmony may be because of heterogeneity and diversity in society. Heterogeneity

suggests that as people are different, they would respond to solidarity differently (Muller

1994). In response, diversity purports that people have different exposures and responses

other than social solidarity and harmony. Heterogeneity and diversity are both consistent

with the erosion of norms and consensus (Schulenberg 2003). People in society therefore

may not display social harmony as a common response to social solidarity.

The finding about the insignificant effects of societal social harmony on distributive

solidarity is also noteworthy. Conceivably, the finding is explainable by resource exchange

theory in terms of the dissimilarity of resources exchanged between social harmony and

distributive solidarity. The resource offered in distributive solidarity, including money,

goods, and services, may be too concrete and universalistic that does not match the

resource provided by social harmony. Moreover, societal social harmony may induce a

crowding out effect that lessens distributive solidarity (Ruiter and De Graaf 2006; van

Oorschot and Arts 2005). The effect happens when redistribution of resources is a way to

reduce social disharmony and thus the redistribution is not required for the case of societal

social harmony (Clemence 2001; Svallfors 1991). This crowding out effect also occurs

when exchange of concrete resources is not relevant at societal level, although it is relevant

at individual level. At individual level, one’s practice of social harmony may receive

concrete rewards from others. However, at societal level, rewarding is difficult due to

uncertainty about benefactors and beneficiaries. Because of the neutralization of the

negative, crowding-out effect and the positive, resource-exchange effect, societal social

harmony did not appear to affect distributive solidarity significantly.


123

Social class makes a difference in social solidarity but not social harmony practiced and

experienced. Notably, family income per capita tended to raise the experiences of dis-

tributive solidarity, dialogic solidarity, and organic solidarity and the unemployed person

was lower in the experiences of organic solidarity, mechanical solidarity, and dialogic

solidarity. These class differences in social solidarity are consistent with extant research

(Kilburn and Maume 2000; Letki 2008). They may be explainable by resource exchange

theory when social class provides resources for weaving social solidarity. Particularly,

social class makes the greatest difference in distributive solidarity. This is consonant with

resource exchange theory regarding the exchange of similarly concrete resources between

social class and distributive solidarity. In contrast, social class induces the least difference

in mechanical solidarity. This finding reflects the discrepancy of beliefs and values or class

interest and consciousness in general among classes (Marsh 2003; Marshall et al. 1988).

However, class or income tends to generate a negative effect on social harmony in some

instances, such as on trust, cooperation, support for economic redistribution, public

spending, and social inclusion (Houtman 2000; Link and Oldendick 1999; Kluegal and

Bobo 2001; Pescosolido et al. 2001; Silverstein and Parrott 2001; Taylor-Gooby et al.

2003; Wilson 2001). Meanwhile, class or income is conducive to some aspects of social

harmony, including conformity, helping, charity, donation, and gift giving (Bekkers 2008;

Chen 2006; Foster et al. 2001; Godoy et al. 2007; Ulbig 2002). The presence of both

negative and positive effects would result in a null effect.

4.1 Further Research

Limitations of the study are clear in its reliance on people’s report about social harmony

and solidarity in experienced in society. Such experiences are not objective social facts,

which are definitely essential for further research dealing with macroscopic issues. The

present findings therefore only reveal microscopic relationships regarding social harmony

and solidarity at individual level. Such microscopic relationships may not fully reflect

those happening at societal level. Another limitation is the cross-sectional, retrospective

design, which cannot ascertain temporal order in causal inference. The present findings

only indicate the possibility of causal relationship specified in the structural equation

model. They require substantiation by a panel design in further research that preferably

obtains repeated measurements over time. To substantiate causal influences, analysis of

panel data needs to control for measurements obtained at an earlier time. A third limitation

applies to the restriction of the study of a sample of Hong Kong Chinese. This sample, at

best, is only representative of the adult population in Hong Kong. The findings are

therefore not generalizable to all people. Further research can extend or examine the

generalizability of the findings by incorporating people from diverse sociocultural con-

texts. Importantly, further research can analyze how different contexts make a difference in

the findings, and what contextual factors contribute to the difference. Contextual factors

can be culture (e.g., Chinese culture vs. others), economic inequality, racial homogeneity,

and residential density, which may affect both social harmony and solidarity (Green et al.

2003; Letki 2008; Schulenberg 2003). Analysis of the contextual effects would allow for

the estimation of the generalizability of the findings to places with different configurations

of contextual factors. Notably, the analysis can reveal if the contextual characteristics of

Hong Kong, such as economic inequality, racial homogeneity, and residential density

weaken the coupling of social harmony and solidarity and thus provide a conservative

estimate of the coupling.


123

Apart from enhancing methodological rigor, further research is obliged to verify the

relevance of resource exchange theory to explaining the coupling of social harmony and

solidarity. Essential to the verification of the theoretical application is the measurement of

resources in exchange and adherence to the norms of reciprocity, and fairness in terms of

similarity in particularism and concreteness, involved in social harmony and solidarity (see

Table 1). Further research can then examine if social harmony and solidarity provide

resources for exchange, according to the norms of reciprocity and fairness or the similarity

of resources exchanged. Specifically, further research can scrutinize if the exchange is

stronger when people have higher adherence to the norms and the resources exchanged are

more similar. The research can also explore if exchange of particularized, affective

resources is more likely than exchange of universalized resources such as goods (Tornblom

and Nilsson 1993).

4.2 Implications

Promotion of social harmony can benefit from the promotion of social solidarity and vice

versa. The promotion of inclusive solidarity or social inclusion is particularly helpful.

Accordingly, this involves the promotion of intergroup acceptance, openness, interaction, a

common identity, and a sense of community (Guan et al. 2009; Wilson 2006). Besides,

promoting organic solidarity, distributive solidarity, and dialogic solidarity is helpful to a

lesser extent. This is to facilitate the opportunities of collaboration, access to public

resources, and dialogue, especially across groups. By contrast, promoting mechanical

solidarity or the consensus in beliefs, values, or norms, or creating a common culture

would not be helpful for strengthening social harmony. Forging a consensus in society is

not only difficult, but also unhelpful to enhancing social order (Beck et al. 1994; Schu-

lenberg 2003). In return, social harmony is also a basis for various forms of social soli-

darity. Social harmony and solidarity would therefore reinforce each other in a virtuous

circle.

Raising people’s income or class location, such as removing unemployment, can pro-

mote social solidarity but cannot strengthen social harmony. Economic development is

therefore a basis for weaving social solidarity. In contrast, economic development can have

a risk of instigating social disharmony, although it can also sustain community develop-

ment (Bornschier et al. 2005; Midgley and Livermore 2005). Given the opposite effects,

economic development would not boost social harmony. Hence, wealth or poverty would

have little direct impact on social harmony, although income or social class can have an

indirect and very weak impact on social harmony through mediation by social solidarity. It

implies that alleviation of poverty may not be a way to foster social harmony. This echoes

the view that poverty does not undermine social and public life, in terms of the availability

of social resources and support (Small and McDermott 2006; Wilcox et al. 2004).

References

Alwin, D. F. (1988). Structural equation model in research on human development and aging. InK. W. Schaie, R. T. Campbell, W. Meredith, & S. C. Rawlings (Eds.), Methodological issues in agingresearch (pp. 71–170). New York: Springer.

Baugher, J. E. (2003). Caught in the middle? Worker identity under new participatory roles. SociologicalForum, 18(3), 417–439.


123

Beck, U., Giddens, A., & Lash, S. (1994). Reflexive modernization: Politics. Tradition and aesthetics in themodern social order. Cambridge, UK: Polity.

Bekkers, R. (2008). Straight from the heart. Advances in Medical Sociology, 10, 197–221.Berger, S. R. (2002). Considering social cohesion in quality of life assessments: Concept and measurement.

Social Indicators Research, 58, 403–428.Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York: Wiley.Bornschier, V., Herkenrath, M., & Konig, C. (2005). The double dividend of expanding education for

development. International Sociology, 20(4), 506–529.Braaten, J. (1991). Habermas’s critical theory of society. New York: State University of New York Press.Brady, A.-M. (2009). The Beijing Olympics as a campaign of mass distraction. China Quarterly, 197, 1–24.Brewer, M. B., & Pierce, K. P. (2005). Social identity complexity and outgroup tolerance. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(3), 428–437.Burroughs, S. M., & Eby, L. T. (1998). Psychological sense of community at work: A measurement system

and explanatory framework. Journal of Community Psychology, 26(6), 509–532.Calhoun, C. (2002). Imagining solidarity: Cosmopolitanism, constitutional patriotism, and the public sphere.

Public Culture, 14(1), 147–171.Cartier, C. (2008). Culture and the city: Hong Kong, 1997–2007. China Review, 8(1), 59–83.Chan, J., & Chan, E. (2006). Charting the state of social cohesion in Hong Kong. China Quarterly, 635–658.Chen, C. (2006). Does the completeness of a household-based convoy matter in intergenerational support

exchanges? Social Indicators Research, 79, 117–142.Chiu, S. W. K., & Lui, T.-l. (2004). Testing the global city-social polarisation thesis: Hong Kong since the

1990s. Urban Studies, 41(10), 1863–1888.Christopher, J. C. (1999). Situating psychological well-being: Exploring the cultural roots of its theory and

research. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(2), 141–152.Clemence, A. (2001). Social positioning and social representations. In K. Deaux & G. Philogene (Eds.),

Representations of the social: Bridging theoretical traditions (pp. 83–95). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Teresi, J., Margaret Marchi, C., & Velez, N. (1990). Problems in the measurement of

latent variables in structural equations causal models. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14(2),183–192.

Crow, G. (2002). Social solidarities: Theories. Identities and social change. Buckingham, UK: OpenUniversity Press.

Dayton-Johnson, J. (2003). Social capital, social cohesion, community: A microeconomic analysis. InL. Osberg (Ed.), Economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 43–78). Toronto, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

Devine, F., & Roberts, J. M. (2003). Alternative approaches to researching social capital: A comment on vanDeth’s measuring social capital. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 93–100.

Duhaime, G., Searles, E., Usher, P. J., Myers, H., & Frechetti, P. (2004). Social cohesion and livingconditions in the Canadian Arctic: From theory to measurement. Social Indicators Research, 66,295–317.

Durkheim, E. [1893] 1933. The division of labor in society (G. Simpson, Trans.). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Ellis, R. D., Fischer, N., & Sauer, J. B. (2006). Foundations of civic engagement: Rethinking social and

political philosophy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.Erickson, B. (2004). The distribution of gendered social capital in Canada. In H. Flap & B. Volker (Eds.),

Creation and returns of social capital: A new research program (pp. 27–50). London: Routledge.Esses, V. M., Dovidio, J. F., & Armstrong, T. L. (2001). The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived

group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 389–412.Estes, R. J. (2005). Quality of life in Hong Kong: Past accomplishments and future prospects. Social

Indicators Research, 71, 183–229.Etzioni, A. (1996). A moderate communitarian proposal. Political Theory, 24(2), 155–171.Foa, U. G., Tornblom, K. Y., Foa, E. B., & Converse, J., Jr. (1993). Resource theory in social psychology. In

U. G. Foa, J. Converse Jr., K. Y. Tornblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.), Resource theory: Explorations andapplications (pp. 1–10). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighborhood. Urban Studies,38(12), 2125–2143.

Forrest, R., La Grange, A., & Yip, N.-m. (2004). Hong Kong as a global city? Social distance and spatialdifferentiation. Urban Studies, 41(1), 207–227.

Foster, V., Mourato, S., Pearce, D., & Ozdemiroglu, E. (2001). The price of virtue: The economic value ofthe charitable sector. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Frazer, E. (1999). The problems of communitarian politics: Unity and conflict. Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-versity Press.


123

Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425.Godoy, R., Reyes-Garcia, V., Huanca, T., Leonard, W. R., Olvera, R. G., Bauehet, J., et al. (2007). The role

of community and individuals in the formation of social capital. Human Ecology, 35, 709–721.Green, A., Preston, J., & Sabutes, R. (2003). Education, equity and social cohesion: A distributional

approach. Compare, 33(4), 453–470.Guan, Y., Bond, M. H., Huang, Z., Zhang, Z., Deng, H., Hu, T., et al. (2009). Role of personal endorsement

of outgroup members’ distinctive values and need for cognitive closure in attitude towards the out-group. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 12, 54–62.

Habermas, J. [1981] 1987. The theory of communicative action, Vol. 2: Lifeworld and system: A critique offunctionalist reason (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Cambridge: Polity Press.

Harpham, T., Grant, E., & Thomas, E. (2002). Measuring social capital within health surveys: Key issues.Health Policy & Planning, 17(1), 106–111.

Hawdon, J., Ryan, J., & Mobley, C. (2000). An evaluation of community antiviolence programs: Impli-cations of some preliminary findings. Research in Community Sociology, 10, 165–187.

Healy, K., Hayne, M., & Hampshire, A. (2007). Gender, social capital and location: Understanding theinteractions. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16, 110–118.

Heise, D. P. (1972). Employing nominal variables, induced variables, and block variables in path analysis.Sociological Methods and Research, 1(2), 147–173.

Ho, S. S. M., & Chan, R. S. Y. (2009). Social harmony in Hong Kong: Level, determinants and policyimplications. Social Indicators Research, 91, 37–58.

Hoover, M., & Stokes, L. O. (2003). Hong Kong in New York: Global connections, national identity, andfilm representations. New Political Science, 25, 509–532.

Houtman, D. (2000). The working class and the welfare state support for economic redistribution, tolerancefor nonconformity and the conditionality of solidarity with the unemployed. Netherlands. Journal ofSocial Sciences, 36(1), 37–55.

Hu, L.-t., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Con-ventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55.

Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: A cross-culturalcomparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109–126.

Hwang, K.-k. (2000). Chinese relationalism: Theoretical construction and methodological considerations.Journal for the Theory of Social Behavior, 30(2), 155–176.

Joassart-Marcelli, P. (2005). Working poverty in southern California: Towards an operational measure.Social Science Research, 34, 20–43.

Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 78(3),458–467.

Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban governance. Urban Studies, 37(5/6),995–1017.

Keeter, S., Kennedy, C., Dimak, M., Best, J., & Craighill, P. (2006). Gauging the impact of growingnonresponse on attitudes from a national RDD telephone survey. Public Opinion Quarterly, 70,759–779.

Kilburn, J. C., Jr., & Maume, M. O. (2000). The paradox of neighborhood association existence andmembership. Research in Community Sociology, 10, 327–344.

Kingsbury, N., & Scanzoni, J. (1993). Structural-functionalism. In P. G. Boss, W. J. Doherty, R. LaRossa,W. R. Schumm, & S. K. Steinmetz (Eds.), Sourcebook of family theories and methods: A contextualapproach (pp. 195–217). New York: Plenum.

Kluegal, J. R., & Bobo, L. D. (2001). Perceived group discrimination and policy attitudes: The sources andconsequences of the race and gender gaps. In A. O’Connor, C. Tilly, & L. D. Bobo (Eds.), Urbaninequality: Evidence from four cities (pp. 163–213). New York: Russell Sage.

Kuan, H.-c., & Lau, S.-k. (2002). Between liberal autocracy and democracy: Democratic legitimacy in HongKong. Democratization, 9(4), 58–76.

La Grange, A., & Pretorius, F. (2002). Private rental housing in Hong Kong. Housing Studies, 17(5),721–740.

Lane, R. E. (1991). The market experience. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Leach, C., van Wayne, M., Zomeren, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., et al. (2008).

Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-groupidentification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 144–165.

Lee, S.-h. (1996). Liberal rights or/and Confucian virtues? Philosophy East & West, 46(3), 367–379.Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods.

Political Studies, 56, 99–126.


123

Levine, M., Prosser, A., Evans, D., & Recher, S. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How ourgroup membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality &Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453.

Link, M. W., & Oldendick, R. W. (1999). Call screening: Is it really a problem for survey research? PublicOpinion Quarterly, 63, 577–589.

Lockwood, D. (1992). Solidarity and schism: The problem of disorder in Durkheimian and Marxist soci-ology. Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

Lowenstein, A., & Daatland, S. O. (2006). Filial norms and family support in a comparative cross-nationalcontext: Evidence from the OASIS study. Ageing & Society, 26, 213–223.

Maloutas, T., & Maloutas, M. P. (2004). The glass menagerie of urban governance and social cohesion:Concepts and stakes/concepts as stakes. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 28(2),449–465.

Marsh, R. M. (2003). How important is social class identification in Taiwan? Sociological Quarterly, 44(1),37–59.

Marshall, G., Rose, D., Newby, H., & Vogler, C. (1988). Social class in modern Britain. London: UnwinHyman.

Mastain, L. (2007). A phenomenological investigation of altruism as experienced by moral exemplars.Journal of Phenomenological Psychology, 38, 62–99.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Brashears, M. E. (2006). Social isolation in America: Changes in corediscussion networks over two decades. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 353–375.

Midgley, J., & Livermore, M. (2005). Development theory and community practice. In M. Weil (Ed.),The handbook of community practice (pp. 153–168). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Molm, L. D. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psycho-logical theories (pp. 24–45). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences.

Mouffe, C. (1999). Deliberative democracy or agonistic pluralism? Social Research, 66(3), 745–758.Mulford, M., Orbell, J., Shatto, C., & Stockard, J. (1998). Physical attractiveness, opportunity, and success

in everyday exchange. American Journal of Sociology, 103(6), 1565–1592.Muller, H.-P. (1994). Social differentiation and organic solidarity: The division of labor revisited. Socio-

logical Forum, 9(1), 73–86.Mullins, L. C., & Dugan, E. (1991). Elderly social relationships with adult children and close friends and

depression. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 6(2), 315–328.Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user’s guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.Noronha, C. (2002). Chinese cultural values and total quality climate. Managing Service Quality, 12(4),

210–223.Ostrom, E. (2009). What is social capital. In V. O. Bartkus, J. H. Davis, & E. Elgar (Eds.), Social capital:

Reaching out, reaching in (pp. 17–38). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Pescosolido, B. A., Tuch, S. A., & Martin, J. K. (2001). The profession of medicine and the public:

Examining Americans’ changing confidence in physician authority from the beginning of the healthcare crisis to the era of health care reform. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42(1), 1–16.

Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. London: Routledge.Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of

Sociology, 24, 1–24.Pramod, C. R. (2008). The spectacle of the Beijing Olympics and the dynamics of state-society relationship

in PRC. China Report, 44(2), 111–137.Raykov, T., & Grayson, D. (2003). A test for change of composite reliability in scale development.

Multivariate Behavioral Research, 38(2), 143–159.Ridgeway, C., & Johnson, C. (1990). What is the relationship between socioemotional behavior and status in

task groups? American Journal of Sociology, 95(5), 1189–1212.Robinson, D. (2005). The search for community cohesion: Key themes and dominant concepts of the public

policy agenda. Urban Studies, 42(8), 1418–1427. (75–231).Rosenfield, M. J. (2005). A critique of exchange theory in mate selection. American Journal of Sociology,

110(5), 1284–1325.Ruiter, S., & De Graaf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53

countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.Salmon, C. T., & Nichols, J. S. (1983). The next-birthday method of respondent selection. Public Opinion

Quarterly, 47, 270–276.Schlesinger, M. (1997). Paradigm lost: The persisting search for community in U.S. health policy. Journal of

Health Politics, Policy and Law, 22(4), 937–992.Schulenberg, J. L. (2003). The social context of police discretion with young offenders: An ecological

analysis. Canadian Journal of Criminology & Criminal Justice, 127–157.


123

Scott, W. A., Scott, R., & Stumpf, J. (1989). Adaptation of immigrants: Individual differences and deter-minants. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Shapiro, A., & Keyes, C. L. M. (2008). Marital status and social well-being: Are the married always betteroff. Social Indicators Research, 88, 329–346.

Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric properties andconstruct validity. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 11, 449–469.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2001). Goals, congruence, and positive well-being: New empirical support forhumanistic theories. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 30–50.

Siisiainen, M. (2003). One concept, two approaches: Bourdieu and Putnam on social capital. InternationalJournal of Contemporary Sociology, 40(2), 183–203.

Silverstein, M., & Parrott, T. M. (2001). Attitudes toward government, policies that assist informal care-givers. Research on Aging, 23, 349–374.

Small, M. L., & McDermott, M. (2006). The presence of organizational resources in poor urban neigh-borhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84(3), 1697–1724.

Stanley, D. (2003). What do we know about social cohesion: The research perspective of the federalgovernment’s social cohesion research network. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28, 5–17.

Stanley, D., & Smeltzer, S. (2003). Many happy returns: How social cohesion attracts investment. In Lars.Osberg (Ed.), Economic implications of social cohesion (pp. 231–240). Toronto, Canada: University ofToronto Press.

Stewart, M. J. (1989). Social support: Diverse theoretical perspectives. Social Science and Medicine, 28(12),1275–1282.

Sturm, D. (1998). Solidarity and suffering: Toward a politics of relationality. Albany, NY: State Universityof New York Press.

SunWolf, (2008). Peer groups: Expanding our study of small group communication. Los Angeles, CA:Sage.

Svallfors, S. (1991). The politics of welfare policy in Sweden: Structural determinants and attitudinalcleavages. British Journal of Sociology, 42(4), 609–634.

Swenson, D. (2004). A neo-functionalist synthesis of theories in family sociology. Lesiston, NY: EdwinMellin.

Taylor-Gooby, P., Hastie, C., & Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous citizens: Welfare knowledge and the limitsto welfare reform. Social Policy & Administration, 37(1), 1–20.

Tornblom, K. Y., & Nilsson, B. O. (1993). The effect of matching resources to sources on their perceivedimportance and sufficiency. In U. G. Foa, J. Converse Jr., K. Y. Tornblom, & E. B. Foa (Eds.),Resource theory: Explorations and applications (pp. 81–96). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Tornblom, K. Y., & Vermunt, R. (2007). Towards an integration of distributive justice, procedural justice,and social resource theories. Social Justice Research, 20, 312–335.

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

Tsang, S.-k. (1999). The Hong Kong economy: Opportunities out of the crisis? Journal of ContemporaryChina, 8(20), 29–45.

Turner, J. H. (1988). A theory of social interaction. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., & Voci, A. (2007). Reducing explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via

direct and extended contact: The mediating role of self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369–388.

Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., Voci, A., & Vonofakou, C. (2008). A test of the extended intergroup contacthypothesis: The mediating role of intergroup activity, perceived ingroup and outgroup norms, andinclusion of the outgroup in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(4), 843–860.

Ulbig, S. G. (2002). Policies, procedures, and people: Sources of support for government? Social ScienceQuarterly, 83(3), 789–809.

van Oorschot, W., & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states: The crowding outhypothesis revisited. Journal of European Social Policy, 15(1), 5–26.

Veenhoven, R. (1998). Quality-of-life in individualistic society: A comparison of 43 nations in the early1990s. Social Indicators Research, 48, 157–186.

Weissberg, R. (2008). Pernicious tolerance: How teaching to accept differences undermines civil society.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

White, D. (2003). Social policy and solidarity, orphans of the new model of social cohesion. CanadianJournal of Sociology, 28(1), 51–76.

Wilcox, P., Quisenberry, N., Cabrera, D. T., & Jones, S. (2004). Busy places and broken windows? Towarddefining the role of physical structure and process in community crime models. Sociological Quarterly,45(2), 185–207.


123

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215–240.Wilson, G. (2001). Support for redistributive policies among the African American middle class: Race and

class effects. Research in Social Stratification & Mobility, 18, 97–115.Wilson, L. (2006). Developing a model for the measurement of social inclusion and social capital in regional

Australia. Social Indicators Research, 75, 335–360.Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research, and

policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2), 225–249.Wright, E. O. (1997). Class counts: Comparative studies in class analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.Zagorski, K. (1999). Egalitarianism, perception of conflicts, and support for transformation in Poland. In

S. Svallfors & P. Taylor-Gooby (Eds.), The end of the welfare state? Responses to state retrenchment(pp. 190–217). London: Routledge.


123

Copyright of Social Indicators Research is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its

content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's

express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

coupling social solidarity and social harmony in hong kong

Documents

social interaction

distributive solidarity

mechanical solidarity

dialogic solidarity

differentforms of solidarity

social interaction

social harmony

problems of social disharmony