Bonding, Bridging, and Constricting

Bibliographic Data

ID23619280
AuthorsLaura K Graham (Tufts University, corresponding author)
Year2016
Pages107-143
Publication date2016-01-01
Open AccessYes
TypeCHAPTER
VenueBeyond Social Capital (SOURCE_BOOK)
PublisherPalgrave Macmillan UK (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1057/9781137518675_5
OpenAlexW2472753068
ISBN9781137518675
LanguageEN
References cited11

Given the nature of government policy and funding for victim support groups, combined with the types of leaders identified in Chap. 4, it should come as no surprise that victim groups were predominantly engaged in bonding, rather than bridging social capital. While around 80 % of groups were engaged in either functional or dysfunctional bonding, only around 20 % built bridging forms of social capital. In this chapter, I will reveal the ways in which victim support groups bonded, bridged, and constricted. Significantly, leadership and trust were crucial determinants of whether bonding, bridging, or constriction occurred. However, government policy, as I have already argued, also played an important role in shaping social capital in victim support groups. Thus, I begin with an investigation of Northern Ireland’s social capital policy. These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Bridging (networking) · Computer security · Dysfunctional family · Government (linguistics) · Political science · Psychiatry · Social capital · Surprise · Health disparities and outcomes · Law · Nonprofit Sector and Volunteering · Psychology · Social Capital and Networks · Social Psychology

Tools

Open DOILibgen