The Relationship between Adolescents' Social

The Relationship between Adolescents’ Social Capital and IndividualismCollectivism in Estonia, Germany, and Russia Mai Beilmann, Boris Mayer, Kairi Kasearu & Anu Realo

Child Indicators Research The official Journal of the International Society for Child Indicators ISSN 1874-897X Volume 7 Number 3 Child Ind Res (2014) 7:589-611 DOI 10.1007/s12187-014-9232-z

1 23

Your article is protected by copyright and all rights are held exclusively by Springer Science +Business Media Dordrecht. This e-offprint is for personal use only and shall not be selfarchived in electronic repositories. If you wish to self-archive your article, please use the accepted manuscript version for posting on your own website. You may further deposit the accepted manuscript version in any repository, provided it is only made publicly available 12 months after official publication or later and provided acknowledgement is given to the original source of publication and a link is inserted to the published article on Springer's website. The link must be accompanied by the following text: "The final publication is available at link.springer.com”.

1 23

Author's personal copy Child Ind Res (2014) 7:589–611 DOI 10.1007/s12187-014-9232-z

The Relationship between Adolescents’ Social Capital and Individualism-Collectivism in Estonia, Germany, and Russia Mai Beilmann & Boris Mayer & Kairi Kasearu & Anu Realo

Accepted: 12 January 2014 / Published online: 29 January 2014 # Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Abstract The present study examines the relationship between adolescents’ social capital and individualism-collectivism using data from the Value of Children Study (Trommsdorff and Nauck 2005) from Estonia (N=228), Germany (N=278), and Russia (N=280). Two social capital indexes for adolescents (measuring parental social capital and peer-group social capital) were developed for the analysis. The COLINDEX Scale (Chan 1994) was used to measure individualistic and collectivistic values. In all three countries collectivistic values predicted parental social capital whereas individualistic values predicted peer-group social capital. There were also a few country-specific relationships between the constructs, with collectivism and peer-group social capital being positively related in Estonia and individualism and parental social capital significantly negatively correlated in Russia. The current analysis suggests that during the adolescence, collectivistic values are more likely to be related to higher levels of parental social capital and individualistic values to higher levels of peer-group social capital. Therefore, it seems that at the individual level and for adolescents the individualism and collectivism are related to different forms of social capital in the different manner. Keywords Adolescents . Individualism . Collectivism . Social capital

M. Beilmann (*) : K. Kasearu Department of Sociology, University of Tartu, Lossi 36, Tartu 51003, Estonia e-mail: [email protected] B. Mayer Department of Psychology, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland A. Realo Department of Psychology, University of Tartu, Näituse 2, Tartu 50409, Estonia

Author's personal copy 590

M. Beilmann et al.

1 Introduction Social capital has been one of the most widely used concepts among social scientists for the last couple of decades (Halpern 2005; Realo and Allik 2009), including children and adolescents studies (Bassani 2007). Nevertheless, there have been complaints that despite the wide usage most of the researchers have exclusively tested whether social capital influences youths’ well-being with the main focus on adolescents’ academic achievement outcomes (Bassani 2007; see Ferguson 2006, for review). Social capital theory could afford much wider opportunities in adolescents and children research, aiming to explain where adolescents’ social capital comes from and testing the relationship between adolescents’ social capital and other sociological/psychological constructs. As there seems to be a link between social capital and individualismcollectivism for adults (Beilmann and Realo 2012), this paper aims to broaden the study of social capital in adolescents and children studies by proposing that there could be a link between adolescents’ social capital and individualism-collectivism as well. 1.1 Children and Social Capital Social capital is the product of social relationships that children and adolescents have within different groups (such as family, school, community organizations etc.) (Bassani 2007). Children and adolescents are considered to benefit in many ways from high social capital levels in the community as well as from good relations in the primary groups. Putnam (2000: 296) has declared that “social capital keeps bad things from happening to good kids”. Indeed, several studies have shown that growing up in families and communities with rich social capital is good for children. For example, country or community level social capital is considered an important determinant of children’s physical (Berntsson et al. 2006; Goodwin and Armstrong-Esther 2004) and mental health (Meltzer et al. 2007). It has also been suggested that rich social capital in childhood can prove valuable by helping to cope with the heightened vulnerability during the critical transition from adolescence to adulthood (Pettit et al. 2011) and establishing healthy interpersonal relationships in early adulthood (Englund et al. 2011). However, the most popular domain of research is probably the connection between family social capital and educational achievement of the adolescent child (Coleman 1988a; Cox and Witko 2008; Kim and Schneider 2005; McNamara Horvat et al. 2003; Morgan and Sorensen 1999; Schneider et al. 2000, 1997; Teachman et al. 1997). Hence, the core idea of social capital – that social networks are valuable for the people who are in them (Putnam 2002) – is valid also in case of children and adolescents. Nevertheless, the networks of adults as compared to those of children and adolescents have one fundamental difference: the primary groups are much more important to the latter. The general social capital literature states that having moderate to weak ties in many different (secondary) groups (so-called bridging social capital) is linked to heightened social capital gains for adults (Burt 2004; Putnam 2000). For youth, on the other hand, the importance of “closed” groups, which are characterized by strong ties between group members (such as among family members), is much higher (Coleman 1987, 1988b, 1990). In his research on adolescents’ academic achievement, Coleman (1988a)

Author's personal copy Adolescents, Individualism-Collectivism, and Social Capital

591

distinguished between interior (i.e., family) and exterior (i.e., community) social capital. Family social capital connoted the relationships between parents and children for Coleman (the time, efforts, resources and energy that parents invest in their children), whereas community social capital represented the family’s interactions and relationships with the surrounding community (first of all with school). Since Coleman’s pioneering research it is widely acknowledged that families and schools are the primary sources of social capital in early life course (Crosnoe 2004). There is a great emphasis on family structure and relations in research and many characteristics of the family are found to be important determinants of social capital for children and adolescents (e.g. Crosnoe 2004; Powell et al. 2006). However, though the family is the most important source of social capital for children and adolescents, indeed, concentrating exclusively on family and neglecting all the other groups that play some role in children’s and adolescents’ lives may not do justice to social capital theory. Bassani (2007) complains that far too often the social capital of children and adolescents is examined in only one group – the family – which reduces the multidimensional social capital theory to a uni-dimensional one. Bassani (2007) agrees that children and adolescents are much more dependent on their primary group (i.e., family) but encourages researchers to pay some attention also to the other social groups such as friends and classmates, for instance. After all, the recognition of individuals (including youths) belonging simultaneously in many overlapping groups is the main strength of the social capital theory. There has been more and more criticism in recent years that in relation to children and adolescents often only the indicators of family social capital and community social capital are identified, indicating that social capital is something that is produced by everybody else but children (see Ferguson 2006, for a review). Such an approach ignores the possibility that children and adolescents are capable of creating social capital among themselves (Farrell et al. 2004). Peer relations are not a very common measure of children’s and adolescents’ social capital but in recent years there is growing tendency to include some measure of peer relations to estimate children’s social capital (Farrell et al. 2004; Ferguson 2006, for a review; UNICEF 2007). In this paper we have included peer-group social capital in our analyses. The roots of underestimating relationships between children stem most likely from classical social capital theory which considers children and adolescents mainly as the passive consumers of parental social capital rather than active producers of their own social relations (Holland et al. 2007; Leonard 2005; Offer and Schneider 2007). The view that children and adolescents are merely the receivers of their parents’ social capital may be also one of the reasons why researches often do not ask children themselves about their own social capital (Farrell et al. 2004). In most cases parents or teachers are considered reliable respondents when it comes to the social capital at children’s disposal. Though the sociology of children has claimed nearly two decades that children are as reliable informants as adults of their own everyday experience (James and Prout 1997), there are rather few studies which have attempted to measure children’s or adolescents’ social capital using children or adolescents as the main informants. This study breaks this rule by using adolescents themselves as the informants of their social capital. It has been often declared that rigorous measurement of social capital can prove challenging (Farrell et al. 2004). Especially in case of children and adolescents as there


M. Beilmann et al.

are no commonly recognized measures of social capital. More than that, a big portion of adults’ social capital measures cannot be extended to children and adolescents because children’s and adolescents’ participation in civic life is restrained (for example, they are unable to vote until the age 18 in many countries) and their social circles are usually smaller (Leonard 2005). When choosing the social capital measures we followed the theory that there should be a great emphasis on the primary groups as the source of social capital in early life course (Ferguson 2006), but nevertheless, social capital research should not focus on one group only (Bassani 2007). On those theoretical grounds two social capital measures for adolescents were developed for the analysis: parental social capital combines the perceived quality of parenting as well as the perceived quality of the parent-adolescent relationship, and peer-group social capital reflects the quality of adolescents’ peer relations. 1.2 Individualism and Collectivism There is a bulk of research on the relationship between social capital and individualismcollectivism at the cultural level, which suggest that at the cultural level of analysis, individualistic values appear to contribute to social capital and social capital appears to be conducive to individualism (Allik and Realo 2004; Realo and Allik 2009). Beilmann and Realo (2012) demonstrated recently that at the individual level of analysis the relationship between social capital and different components of individualismcollectivism appears rather multi-faceted and only one component of individualism— mature self-responsibility—exhibited positive associations with social capital. At the same time, also peer- and society-related forms of collectivism were positively correlated with social capital. Testing the relationship between individualism-collectivism and social capital on the data from adolescent respondents can shed further light upon the question why some individuals have different kinds and different levels of social capital. The concepts of individualism and collectivism gained a lot of popularity in psychology after Geert Hofstede’s landmark study (1980, 1983) which found individualism versus collectivism to be one of the most distinctive dimensions of cultural variation. In the current paper we will follow the individual-level conceptualization of individualismcollectivism as proposed by Chan (1994). Chan’s (1994) conceptualization is based on Shalom Schwartz’s theory of ten basic values which intend to include all the core values recognized in cultures around the world. Different conceptualizations of individualismcollectivism (e.g., Oishi et al. 1998; Realo et al. 1997, 2002) have been related to Schwartz’s value types of Openness and Conservation at the individual level. The relationship between social capital and individualism-collectivism of adolescents is, of course, a tricky question because the origins of both – the primary social capital as well as basic values of the young person – are fundamentally interweaved with the family environment. Despite that there are bulks of different value theories, all authors seem to agree that the basis for specific value orientations is laid in early childhood and that in adolescence abstract values are reflected, negotiated and formed on that basis (Vinken et al. 2004). Social capital, on the other hand, is something that needs to be produced all over again and again or it vanishes. Considering that both – individualism-collectivism and family social capital – are transmitted in families, the interplay between values and social capital is probably extremely complex.


593

Continuity and change of cultures over generations are affected by cultural transmission. The values, knowledge, and practices are transferred to the next generation through intergenerational transmission (Trommsdorff 2009). Thus, the quality of parent child relationship is not only important for creating the family social capital but for the transmission of cultural values, such as individualism and collectivism, as well (Trommsdorff 2009, 2006). Thus, we may approach the relation between individualism-collectivism and social capital from two perspectives: According to a socialization and transmission perspective values can be seen as an outcome of the parent–child relationship, and thereby of the child’s primary social capital. On the contrary, in relation to the proposed stability of values and from a perspective identifying the adolescent child also as a creator of his/her social capital, value orientations may also affect the relationships adolescents have with their parents and peers. Thus, individualism-collectivism can also be conceptualized as a predictor of social capital. Since the interplay between individualism-collectivism and social capital is bidirectionally complex, the choice a specific perspective (‘social capital as predicting values’ or ‘values as predicting social capital’) is rather discretionary. 1.3 Aim of the Study The relationship between individualism-collectivism and social capital has drawn researchers’ keen attention at the cultural level (Realo and Allik 2009; Allik and Realo 2004; Realo et al. 2008). There is also research on children’s individualismcollectivism in a family context (e.g. Trommsdorff et al. 2004). However, though it seems logical to assume that the values into which children are socialized at home probably affect their social relations, there has not been an attempt to test whether there could be a link between children’s and adolescents’ individualistic-collectivistic values and their social capital. In this paper we test the effects of adolescents’ individualistic-collectivistic values on their social capital in three European cultures (in Estonia, Germany, and Russia). Research on social capital as well as on individualism-collectivism has proved that there exist significant cross-cultural differences in the amount of social capital in people’s disposal (Halpern 2005; Meer et al. 2008; Meulemann 2008; Neller 2008; Putnam 2002; Raiser et al. 2001) as well as in their levels of individualism-collectivism (Hofstede 2001; Realo and Allik 1999; Schwartz 1992), suggesting that there is more social capital in Western European countries (like Germany) than in Eastern European countries (like Estonia and Russia) and that people in Germany and Estonia are more individualistic than people in Russia. There is no reason to assume that adolescents are fundamentally different from adults in that respect. Still, it is important to keep in mind that European countries are rather similar to each other if compared to other regions in the world (Gabriel and Walter Rogg 2008) and thus dramatic differences are not to be expected. Based on the theoretical assumption that the usefulness of social capital theory is that it acknowledges individuals as being a part of many overlapping groups (Bassani 2007), this study attempts to test the relationship between adolescents’ individualismcollectivism and their social capital focusing on two most important groups in adolescents’ lives, family and peers. Family remains important throughout adolescence but peers constitute an extremely important reference group for adolescents in European


M. Beilmann et al.

cultures, where traditional family values are less important than in other parts of the world (Schwarz et al. 2012). As said above, the cultural level findings strongly suggest that people in more individualistic societies in general have more social capital (Realo and Allik 2009; Allik and Realo 2004; Realo et al. 2008). However, as Beilmann and Realo (2012) recently demonstrated, the relationship between social capital and individualismcollectivism appears more multi-faceted at the individual level. We assume that due to the special characteristics of the adolescents’ social capital (e.g., more focus on primary groups) collectivistic values strongly predict the parental social capital of the adolescents. Furthermore, a strong linkage between collectivist values and parental social capital is predicted as the family relations are central for collectivistic values and traditional measures of collectivism and family social capital often overlap to some degree. Individualistic values are assumed to predict peer-group social capital.

2 Method 2.1 Data The present study examines the relationship between adolescents’ individualismcollectivism and social capital using data from the Value of Children Study (Trommsdorff and Nauck 2005) from Estonia, Germany, and Russia. The VOC study is a three-generation study that is conducted in more than 15 countries and includes about 300 adolescents, their mothers, and about 100 maternal grandmothers in every participating country. For the current study, only the adolescent participants from three countries were selected. In all three countries, participants were surveyed by members of the local collaborating team, completing a questionnaire either at home or in school. In Russia, families were recruited through the schools of the target adolescents; in Germany and Estonia, participants were chosen through resident registration lists. The sampling was restricted to only a few locations within each country. Nevertheless, in Germany and Estonia the samples came from several regions varying in geographical and socioeconomic characteristics. In Russia, the sample came only from one region but still with varying socioeconomic characteristics. The data collection took place in the years 2002 and 2003 in Germany, in the years 2006 and 2007 in Russia, and in 2009 in Estonia. We analyzed the data from 786 respondents, 228 from Estonia, 278 from Germany, and 280 from Russia, with a mean age of 15.5 years (SD=1.09; age span: 14–17 years), 15.7 years (SD=1.05; age span: 13–18 years), and 15.9 (SD=1.39; age span: 13– 19 years), respectively. Girls made up 51 % of participants in Estonia, 55 % in Germany, and 55 % in Russia. On average, respondents had completed 8.1 years of full-time education in Estonia (SD=2.00), 9.4 years of full-time education in Germany (SD=1.16), and 8.9 years of full-time education in Russia (SD=1.15)1.

1 The differences in years of full-time education are result of differences in school systems: children in Germany go to school in younger age than in Estonia and Russia.


595

2.2 Measures The parental social capital index consists of two different instruments. Quality of parenting and quality of parent–child relations are widely used measures of children’s social capital (Farrell et al. 2004; Ferguson 2006, for a review; UNICEF 2007). We used 10 items from the Parental Acceptance-Rejection scales (Rohner and Cournoyer 1994) (only Acceptance items were included) to measure parenting quality (e.g., “My mother makes me feel wanted and needed”; see Appendix 1 for the other items). Items were rated on a 4-point scale ranging from 1=almost never true to 4=almost always true. Furthermore, to measure quality of parent–child relations 6 items from Furman and Buhrmester’s (1985) Quality of Relationship scales were included. We used only the subscales Intimacy (e.g., “How often do you tell your mother/father everything that is on your mind?”) and Admiration (e.g., “How often does your mother/father like or approve of the things you do?”; see Appendix 1 for the other items). Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=never to 5=always. All six items were rated twice, once in relation to the mother and once in relation to the father, thus all in all, 12 items were rated. As the family structure is considered as an important source of family social capital by many different authors (Ferguson 2006, for a review; UNICEF 2007) we tried include it in our analysis but unfortunately measures of family structure (such as, father living with the family or not) did not correlate with the other measures we use. The peer-group social capital index is based on the 10 item Peer Acceptance scale (Epstein 1983), e.g. “People my age like to ask me to hang out with them” (see Appendix 1 for the other items). Items were rated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1=strongly disagree to 5=strongly agree. Peer relations are not a very common measure of children’s social capital but in recent years there is growing tendency to include some measure of peer relations to estimate children’s social capital (Farrell et al. 2004; Ferguson 2006, for a review; UNICEF 2007). Individualism and Collectivism The COLINDEX Scale (Chan 1994) was used to measure Individualism and Collectivism. Seven items assessed individualistic values and six items measured collectivistic values. Sample items for Individualism included, for example, “Creativity (uniqueness, imagination)” and “Freedom (freedom of action and thought)” (see Appendix 1 for the other items); sample items for Collectivism included, for example, “Honor of your parents and elders (showing respect)” and “Selfdiscipline (self-restraint, resistance to temptation)”. Participants answered the items on a 5-point scale (from 1=not important at all, to 5=very important).

2.3 Statistical Analysis We used multigroup structural equation modeling to test our model regarding the effects of adolescents’ individualism/collectivism on their social capital. Item parceling was applied to obtain observed indicators for the latent variables Individualism, Collectivism, Parental Social Capital and Peer-Group Social Capital using the itemto-construct balance approach (Little et al. 2002). According to this approach, in a first step the unidimensionality of the underlying construct has to be confirmed via exploratory factor analysis, followed by the construction of parcels according to the common


M. Beilmann et al.

factor loadings by combining higher loading items with lower loading items to maximize the “balance” of the parcels in terms of homogeneous loadings on the latent construct. For all constructs (Individualism, Collectivism, Parental Social Capital, PeerGroup Social Capital) an exploratory pancultural principal component analysis (PCA) yielded unidimensional solutions with all items loading>0.5 on the common factor. Since it is preferable to have a relatively low number of parcels and a relatively high number of items per parcel (Little et al. 2002) three parcels were created for individualism (two parcels by averaging across two items, one parcel with three items), three parcels (each averaging across two items) for collectivism, five parcels for Parental Social Capital (three parcels by averaging across four items, two parcels by averaging across five items), and three parcels for Peer-Group Social Capital (two parcels by averaging across three items, one parcel with four items). The multigroup analysis of the suggested model proceeded in the following steps: First, we tested the cross-cultural equivalence of the measurement model (metric invariance). Second, we tested the cross-cultural equality of the structural paths, and in further models we tested additional hierarchical constraints (structural covariances, structural residuals, and measurement residuals). The multi-group option of the program Amos 20 was used for all analyses.

3 Results 3.1 Preliminary Analyses First, we analyzed differences and similarities in mean scores of social capital and individualism-collectivism between Estonian, German, and Russian adolescents by the means of analysis of variance (ANOVA). The analyses showed that only some small differences were observed with regard to the levels of social capital between Estonian, German, and Russian adolescents. On average, Estonian youngsters scored 3.2 (SD= 0.58) in parental social capital and 3.7 (SD=0.50) in peers social capital, German youngsters 2.9 (SD=0.51) and 3.9 (SD=0.54), and Russian youngsters 3.1 (SD=0.58) and 3.9 (SD=0.43), respectively. An ANOVA showed no effect of culture on the measures of Individualism and Collectivism between Estonian, German, and Russian adolescents. On average, Estonian youngsters scored 4.0 (SD=0.50) in Individualism and 3.8 (SD=0.57) in Collectivism, German youngsters 4.1 (SD=0.47) and 3.8 (SD=0.61), and Russian youngsters 4.1 (SD=0.54) and 3.8 (SD=0.62), respectively. 3.2 Multi-Group Structural Equation Modeling We set up a multi-group structural equation model with the exogenous latent variables Individualism and Collectivism predicting the endogenous latent variables Parental Social Capital and Peer-Group Social Capital (see Fig. 1). After a first analysis of the model, an inspection of modification indices showed that the error variables of two indicators of the latent variable Parental Social Capital (parcels Par1 and Par3) covaried substantially in all three cultures. We checked the content of the parcels and found they each contained two (of six) items related to relationship quality with the


597

father while the other three parcels contained only one father item each. Since we knew from preliminary analyses that the relationship with the father – though substantially correlated with the other relationship quality measures – was kind of specific since the other parental social capital measures (relationship quality and parenting) were only related to the mother, and since this was the only error covariance with a high value, we decided to include this error covariance in the model. The final model thus included the measurement weights (“loadings” of parcels on the latent variables), the structural weights (the path coefficients between the latent variables), the structural (co-)variances (the variances of the two exogenous latent variables Individualism and Collectivism as well as the covariance between them), the structural residuals (the error variances [residuals] of the two endogenous latent variables plus the covariance between them), and the measurement residuals (error variances of the indicator variables [parcels] as well as the just mentioned covariance between the residuals of parcel Par1 and Par3 of the latent variable Parental Social Capital). First, we report the results (significance of effects) of the unconstrained model separately for the three cultures. After that we will turn to the question of model fit and whether Estonian, German, and Russian adolescents differ with regard to the investigated relationships. In Estonia, Individualism had a significant positive effect on Peer-Group Social Capital while the effect on Parental Social Capital was non-significant. Furthermore, Collectivism was significantly positively related to Parental Social Capital as well as to Peer-Group Social Capital but less strongly (see Table 1 and Fig. 2). In addition, all effects of the measurement model were significant and the measurement weights (“loadings”) were substantial and similar across parcels. All three structural covariances were positively significant (see Table 1). In Germany the effects were similar: Individualism had a significant positive effect on Peer-Group Social Capital while Collectivism had a significant positive effect on Parental Social Capital. Different from Estonian adolescents, Collectivism was

Fig. 1 Simplified theoretical SEM-model (error variables not included)


M. Beilmann et al.

Table 1 Parameter estimates for the unconstrained model (n=786) Estonia (n=228) Estimate SE

Germany (n=278) Standard. Estimate SE estimate

Russia (n=280)

Standard. Estimate SE estimate

Standard. estimate

Paths IND→SC Parents

−0.04

0.10 −0.03

−0.04

0.09 −0.03

−0.26** 0.09 −0.23

IND→SC Peers

0.27**

0.10 0.23

0.42***

0.12 0.30

0.34***

0.10 0.30

COL→SC Parents 0.36***

0.10 0.34

0.28***

0.08 0.30

0.53***

0.08 0.57

COL→SC Peers

0.21*

0.10 0.19

0.02

0.09 0.02

0.04

0.08 0.04

IND→Ind1

1a

IND→Ind2

1.10***

0.15 0.74

0.96***

0.13 0.62

1.13***

0.14 0.71

IND→Ind3

0.99***

0.13 0.71

1.06***

0.14 0.75

1.09***

0.13 0.77

COL→Col1

1a

COL→Col2

1.04***

0.13 0.72

1.10***

0.10 0.79

1.11***

0.10 0.84

COL→Col3

1.08***

0.14 0.70

1.00***

0.10 0.70

0.81***

0.09 0.62

SC Parents→Par1

1.00***

0.06 0.86

1.06***

0.06 0.83

0.93***

0.08 0.80

SC Parents→Par2

1.03***

0.06 0.83

1.00***

0.06 0.81

1.07***

0.06 0.85

SC Parents→Par3

0.88***

0.07 0.69

1.03***

0.07 0.78

0.88***

0.07 0.69

SC Parents→Par4

1.03***

0.05 0.90

1.09***

0.06 0.89

1.02***

0.05 0.89

SC Parents→Par5

1a

SC Peers→Peer1

1.09***

0.07 0.87

1.03***

0.06 0.86

0.50***

0.07 0.55

SC Peers→Peer2

0.81***

0.07 0.67

0.77***

0.06 0.72

0.84***

0.10 0.68

SC Peers→Peer3

1a

0.64

0.70

0.89

0.91

1a

0.62

1a

0.76

1a

0.86

1a

0.92

1a

0.62

1a

0.74

1a

0.86

1a

0.87

Covariances IND ↔ COL

0.10***

0.03 0.35

e15 ↔ e16

0.07**

e9 ↔ e7

0.05**

IND COL

0.11***

0.03 0.38

0.13***

0.03 0.42

0.02 0.23

0.10***

0.03 0.29

0.07**

0.02 0.25

0.02 0.25

0.07***

0.02 0.36

0.05***

0.02 0.24

0.26***

0.06

0.24***

0.05

0.25***

0.05

0.29***

0.06

0.35***

0.05

0.37***

0.06

e1

0.38***

0.05

0.40***

0.05

0.41***

0.04

e2

0.27***

0.04

0.35***

0.04

0.31***

0.04

e3

0.25***

0.04

0.21***

0.04

0.20***

0.03

e4

0.30***

0.04

0.26***

0.04

0.30***

0.04

e5

0.30***

0.04

0.25***

0.04

0.19***

0.04

e6

0.36***

0.05

0.36***

0.04

0.39***

0.04

e7

0.11***

0.01

0.16***

0.02

0.16***

0.02

e8

0.16***

0.02

0.16***

0.02

0.14***

0.02

Variances

e9

0.28***

0.03

0.21***

0.02

0.27***

0.03

e10

0.08***

0.01

0.10***

0.01

0.09***

0.01

e11

0.09***

0.01

0.11***

0.01

0.11***

0.01

e12

0.14***

0.03

0.18***

0.03

0.19***

0.02

e13

0.28***

0.03

0.26***

0.03

0.27***

0.03


599

Table 1 (continued) Estonia (n=228) Estimate SE

Germany (n=278) Standard. Estimate SE estimate

Russia (n=280)

Standard. Estimate SE estimate

e14

0.07***

0.02

0.08***

0.02

0.11***

0.03

e15

0.29***

0.04

0.28***

0.03

0.23***

0.03

e16

0.32***

0.04

0.42***

0.05

0.29***

0.05

Standard. estimate

IND individualism. COL collectivism. SC Parents social capitel parents. SC Peers social capitel peers a

Value set a priori

* p