| Literature DB >> 32260254 |
Qian Liu1, Haimin Pan2,3.
Abstract
Given the large number of internal migrant workers in China and their contribution to the development of the society and country, their life satisfaction somewhat signifies the success of their integration into the new environment. This study is to explore the influence of subjective relative deprivation on life satisfaction among rural-to-urban migrant workers in China. Additionally, linking social capital was used as a mediator and friendship network size as a moderator. This study was designed as cross-sectional and 2442 rural-urban migrants in both Xiamen (N = 1197) and Changsha (N = 1245) were recruited by using a multi-stage stratified probability proportional to size sampling method. The results showed a significantly negative mediating effect of linking social capital with a negative association between subjective relative deprivation and life satisfaction. Moreover, the number of friends moderated the effect of linking social capital on life satisfaction. This study confirmed a moderated mediation model and highlighted the importance of linking social capital and subjective relative deprivation in deciding life satisfaction of Chinese rural-to-urban migrant workers. Polities and purposeful action for enhancing social integration (i.e., interaction with community members and taking part in social and political activities) are advised to build a well-off society in China.Entities:
Keywords: friendship network size; life satisfaction; linking social capital; rural-to-urban migrant workers; subjective relative deprivation
Year: 2020 PMID: 32260254 PMCID: PMC7177230 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17072454
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1The conceptual model including subjective relative deprivation, linking social capital, life satisfaction and friendship network.
Figure 2The association between linking social capital and life satisfaction with friendship network size as a moderator. Note: LSC = linking social capital, FNS = friendship network size.
Personal information about the subjects.
| Variable | Mean ± SD (Range) | Number of Cases |
|---|---|---|
| Age | 34.54 ± 10.37 (16–76) | 2435 |
| Gender | ||
| Male | 1394 (57.08%) | 2442 |
| Female | 1048 (42.92%) | |
| Marital status | ||
| With a spouse | 1793 (73.48%) | 2440 |
| Single (unmarried/divorced/widowed) | 647 (26.52%) | |
| Education | ||
| Primary education or below | 277 (11.35%) | 2441 |
| Junior high education | 1001 (41.01%) | |
| Senior high or technical secondary education | 781 (32.00%) | |
| tertiary education and above | 382 (15.65%) | |
| Monthly income (RMB) | 3866.053 ± 1861.695(1500–9000) | 2359 |
| Occupation | ||
| Employed | 1706 (77.97%) | 2188 |
| Self-employed | 482 (22.03%) | |
| Duration of stay | 8.40 ± 7.46(1–63) | 2436 |
| Immigration distance | ||
| Inter-provincial migration | 911 (37.31%) | 2442 |
| Inner-provincial migration | 1531 (62.69%) | |
| Immigratory place | ||
| Changsha | 1245 (50.98%) | 2442 |
| Xiamen | 1197 (49.02%) |
SD = standard deviation, 1 USD = 7.011RMB.
Descriptive statistics and bivariate correlations of the study variables.
| Variable | Mean ± SD | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Subjective relative deprivation | 4.36 ± 0.89 | 1 | −0.05 * | −0.07 * | −0.29 * |
| 2. Linking social capital | 1.59 ± 0.57 | 1 | 0.05 * | 0.09 * | |
| 3. Friendship network size | 34.95 ± 31.38 | 1 | 0.02 | ||
| 4. Life satisfaction | 3.59 ± 0.81 | 1 |
SD = standard deviation, * p < 0.05.
The effects of subjective relative deprivation on life satisfaction through linking social capital.
| Variable | Linking Social Capital | Life Satisfaction | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | ||
| Subjective relative deprivation | −0.052 * | −0.284 *** | −0.280 *** | −0.004 *[−0.008, −0.00005] |
| Linking social capital | — | 0.079 *** | 0.079 *** | — |
| Age | 0.171 *** | 0.084 ** | 0.071 ** | 0.013 ** |
| Gender | 0.010 | −0.049 * | −0.050 * | 0.001 |
| Marital status | −0.015 | −0.004 | −0.002 | −0.001 |
| Education | 0.035 | 0.051 * | 0.048 * | 0.003 |
| Income | −0.019 | 0.010 | 0.011 | −0.002 |
| Occupation | −0.004 | 0.018 | 0.017 | −0.0003 |
| Duration of stay | −0.028 | 0.044 | 0.046 * | −0.002 |
| Origin areas | −0.002 | −0.008 | −0.008 | −0.0001 |
| Immigratory place | 0.222 *** | −0.0132 | −0.031 | 0.017 ** |
Unstandardized coefficients are presented. CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap = 500. * p< 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, —, no link specified in the model.
Figure 3A path model of how subjective relative deprivation influences life satisfaction. * p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.001.
The effects of subjective relative deprivation on life satisfaction through linking social capital with friendship network size as a moderator.
| Variable | Linking Social Capital | Life Satisfaction | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total Effects | Direct Effects | Indirect Effects | ||
| Subjective relative deprivation | −0.052 * | −0.283 *** | −0.279 *** | −0.004 * [−0.008, −0.0001] |
| Linking social capital | — | 0.080 *** | 0.080 *** | — |
| Friendship network size | — | 0.011 | 0.011 | — |
| Linking social capital × Friendship network size | — | −0.081 ** | −0.081 ** | — |
| Age | 0.171 *** | 0.083 *** | 0.070 ** | 0.014 ** |
| Gender | 0.010 | −0.052 * | −0.053 ** | 0.001 |
| Marital status | −0.015 | −0.003 | −0.001 | −0.001 |
| Education | 0.035 | 0.051 * | 0.048 * | 0.003 |
| Income | −0.019 | 0.007 | 0.009 | −0.002 |
| Occupation | −0.004 | 0.019 | 0.019 | −0.0003 |
| Duration of stay | −0.028 | 0.041 | 0.044 * | −0.002 |
| Origin areas | −0.002 | −0.006 | −0.006 | −0.0001 |
| Immigratory place | 0.222 *** | −0.0132 | −0.031 | 0.018 *** |
Unstandardized coefficients are presented. CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap = 500, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001, —, no link specified in the model.
Figure 4A path model of how subjective relative deprivation influences life satisfaction with friendship network size as a moderator. * p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001.
The conditional indirect effects.
| Variable | Coef. | BootSE | z | BC [95% CI] | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Low Friendship network size | −0.008 | 0.004 | −20.08 | 0.037 | −0.0191 | −0.0018 |
| Average Friendship network size | −0.004 | 0.002 | −10.94 | 0.052 | −0.0109 | −0.0010 |
| High Friendship network size | −0.0001 | 0.002 | −0.07 | 0.946 | −0.0042 | 0.0031 |
BC = bias-corrected confidence interval. CI = confidence interval. Bootstrap = 500.