C

Community Support For example, Gottlieb (1981, p. 32) proposed

different settings, corresponding to three ecologi-
Enrique Gracia cal levels of analysis in which social support pro-
Department of Social Psychology, University of cesses may take place: macro (social integration/
Valencia, Valencia, Spain participation approach), mezzo (social network
approach), and micro (intimate relationship
approach), in which the macro level refers to
Synonyms people’s involvement with institutions, voluntary
associations, and informal social life of their com-
Social Support munities. Community support would correspond
to the most external of these levels, as they are
potential sources of support. Likewise, Lin (1986)
Definition argued that social support conceptualizations
should reflect three different layers of social rela-
It is the social support from community ties and tions: intimate and confiding relationships, the
organizations. Neighbors, neighborhood associa- social network, and the community. The outer
tions, and other social groups in the community, and most general of these layers consists of rela-
schools, the parish, or community social services tionships with the larger community (e.g., church,
are examples of community sources of support. school, clubs and services, political and civic
associations) and would reflect the extent to
which the individual identifies and participates in
Description the social environment at large (Lin 1986, p. 19).
In this regard, the sense of belonging and integra-
Social support from close and intimate relation- tion into a community is relevant for social sup-
ships has been the main focus of attention in social port because the stronger this feeling, the more
support literature. However, social support is also probable a person would expect significant help
available from other groups and the larger com- from others (Dalton et al. 2001). Communities
munity (Adelman et al. 1987; Caplan 1974; include voluntary organizations (e.g., religious,
Gottlieb 1981; Herrero and Gracia 2007; Lin cultural, sports, neighborhood, or civic groups)
1986; Wellman and Wortley 1990). According to as well as organized services (e.g., social-service
an ecological framework of analysis agencies, family services, self-help, or support
(Bronfenbrenner 1979), different sources of sup- groups) in which people spend part of their time.
port can be identified in the social environment. These community settings can provide new
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021
F. Maggino (ed.), Encyclopedia of Quality of Life and Well-Being Research,
[Link]
2 Community Support

information and resources, promote concept that can be linked to community support
interdependence and mutual commitment, and, is the concept of neighboring, which also reflects
therefore, may become important sources of sup- social interactions and exchange of support
port (Dalton et al.; Herrero and Gracia 2007; Lin between neighbors and captures the sense of sup-
et al. 1986; Shinn and Toohey 2003). The concept port and mutual aid which is also an essential
of community support is closely link to the idea of aspect of being part of a community (Unger and
support from weak ties (Granovetter 1973), a con- Wandersman 1985; Skjaevelan et al. 1996). Com-
cept that covers a wide range of potential sup- munity support is also close to the concept of
porters who lie beyond the primary network of social capital, as community ties and participation
family and close friends (Adelman et al. 1987). in voluntary organizations and groups make up
The community provides a network of weak ties much of the social capital people use to deal with
that is likely to provide information and resources daily life, seize opportunities, reduce uncer-
not redundant with the information and resources tainties, and achieve for social support. Social
available in the network of strong ties. Both net- capital literature emphasizes the importance of
works are used but probably used for different communities to access and use resources
purposes (Wellman 1981; Wellman and Wortley (material, informational, or emotional) for mutual
1990). According to Wellman, “weaker ties often benefit through social ties, groups, and organiza-
provide more diverse support because they access tions (Coleman 1988; Putnam 2000; Lin 2001).
a greater number and variety of social circles. . . Research on the relationships between commu-
weak ties can be unique channels to new, diverse nity support and well-being has received little
sources of information, often proving more useful attention as compared to the large body of litera-
than strong ties. . . with their links to other social ture linking support from intimate and close rela-
circles, such weak ties can also introduce an indi- tionships and psychological well-being.
vidual into these circles as social situations Comparatively, few scholars have recognized the
change” (p. 186). importance of this level of analysis in social sup-
Community support is a concept also strongly port research (e.g., Caplan 1974; Lin et al. 1986;
linked to community psychology. As Barrera Haines et al. 1996; Turner et al. 1998; Turner and
(2000) noted, social support became a central Turner 1999; Dalton et al. 2001; Shinn and
concept in community psychology, as it captures Toohey 2003; Gracia and Herrero 2006; Herrero
“helping transactions that occur between people et al. 2011; Nwoke et al. 2016). However, support
who share the same households, schools, neigh- from community sources is also important for
borhoods, workplaces, organizations, and other mental health and can be considered an important
community settings” (p. 215). In this sense, the route to psychological wellness (Cowen 2000). In
concept of community support is also connected line with research linking indicators of commu-
to many fundamental concepts in community psy- nity life (e.g., sense of community, neighboring,
chology. In their analysis of these connections, community participation) to psychological well-
Herrero and Gracia (2007) posit that there is an being (e.g., Chavis and Wandersman 1990;
underlying element of support in a diversity of Davidson and Cotter 1991; Farrel et al. 2004),
concepts traditionally used in community concepts closely linked to that of community sup-
research. For example, in the concept of sense of port, available research shows also a positive
community, the feeling of interdependence with association between community support indica-
others, the perception of belongingness, and the tors and psychological adjustment, even after con-
feeling that one is part of a larger structure are also trolling for levels of support from close and
maintained by the belief that the needs can be met intimate relationships (Gracia and Herrero 2006;
through the resources and cooperative behavior Herrero and Gracia 2007; Nwoke et al. 2016;
within the community and by the emotional sup- Zhang et al. 2018). This is, however, an
port stemming from community living (Sarason underresearched area, and clearly more research
1974; McMillan and Chavis 1986). Another is needed on issues such as differences between
Community Support 3

available, appraised, or received community sup- Dalton, J., Elias, M., & Wandersman, A. (2001). Commu-
port; its determinants; their relationship to psy- nity psychology: Linking individuals and communities.
Stamford: Wadsworth.
chosocial adjustment; and whether the Davidson, W., & Cotter, P. (1991). The relationship
mechanisms explaining its potential benefits par- between sense of community and subjective well-
allel those discussed in social support research on being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology,
close and intimate relationships and its impact on 19, 246–253.
Farrel, S., Aubry, T., & Coulombe, D. (2004). Neighbor-
health and well-being. The measurement of sup- hoods and neighbors: Do they contribute to personal
port from community ties and organizations is well-being? Journal of Community Psychology, 32,
also an area clearly in need of further develop- 9–25.
ment, as few psychometrically sound instruments Gottlieb, B. (1981). Social networks and social support in
community mental health. In B. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social
are available (e.g., Lin et al. 1979, 1986; Herrero networks and social support (pp. 11–42). London:
and Gracia 2007). Sage.
Gracia, E., & Herrero, J. (2006). La comunidad como
fuente de apoyo social: Evaluación e implicaciones en
los ámbitos individual y comunitario [Community as a
Cross-References source of social support: Evaluation and implications of
individual and community contexts]. Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicología, 38, 327–342.
▶ Community Cohesion Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. The
▶ Community QOL Measures American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.
▶ Community Satisfaction Haines, V., Hurlbert, J., & Beggs, F. (1996). Exploring the
determinants of support provision: Provider character-
▶ Community Well-Being Index
istics, personal networks, community contexts, and
▶ Neighborhood Participation support following life events. Journal of Health and
▶ Neighborhood Perceptions Social Behavior, 37, 252–264.
▶ Social Participation Herrero, J., & Gracia, E. (2007). Measuring perceived
community support: Factorial structure, longitudinal
invariance and predictive validity of the PCSQ
(perceived community support questionnaire). Journal
of Community Psychology, 35, 197–217.
References Herrero, J., Fuente, A., & Gracia, E. (2011). Covariates of
subjective well-being among Latin American immi-
Adelman, M., Parks, M., & Albrecht, T. (1987). Beyond grants in Spain: The role of social integration in the
close relationships: Support in weak ties. In T. Albrecht community. Journal of Community Psychology, 39,
& M. Adelman (Eds.), Communicating social support 761–775.
(pp. 126–147). Newbury Park: Sage. Lin, N. (1986). Conceptualizing social support. In N. Lin,
Barrera, M. (2000). Social support research in community A. Dean, & W. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events,
psychology. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman (Eds.), and depression (pp. 17–30). New York: Academic
Handbook of community psychology (pp. 215–245). Press.
New York: Kluwer/Plenum. Lin, N. (2001). Social capital: A theory of social structure
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human devel- and action. New York: Cambridge.
opment: Experiments by nature and design. Cam- Lin, N., Simeone, R., Ensel, W., & Kuo, W. (1979). Social
bridge, MA: Harvard University Press. support, stressful life events, and illness: A model and
Caplan, G. (1974). Support systems and community mental an empirical test. Journal of Health and Social Behav-
health: Lectures on concept development. Pasadena: ior, 20, 108–119.
Behavioral Publications. Lin, N., Dumin, M., & Woelfel, M. (1986). Measuring
Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of com- community and network support. In N. Lin, A. Dean,
munity in the urban environment: A catalyst for partic- & W. Ensel (Eds.), Social support, life events, and
ipation and community development. American depression (pp. 153–170). New York: Academic Press.
Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55–81. McMillan, D., & Chavis, D. (1986). Sense of community:
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human Definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychol-
capital. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, ogy, 14, 6–23.
95–120. Nwoke, M. B., Chukwuorji, J. C., & Ebere, M. O. (2016).
Cowen, E. (2000). Community psychology and routes to Number of dependents, community support, and men-
psychological wellness. In J. Rappaport & E. Seidman tal health in later life: Does gender make a difference?
(Eds.), Handbook of community psychology
(pp. 79–99). New York: Kluwer/Plenum.
4 Community Support

The International Journal of Aging and Human Devel- Turner, H., Pearlin, L., & Mullan, J. (1998). Sources and
opment, 83, 63–87. determinants of social support for caregivers of persons
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and with AIDS. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 39,
revival of American community. New York: Simon 137–151.
and Schuster. Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance
Sarason, S. (1974). The psychological sense of community: of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective com-
Prospects for a community psychology. San Francisco: ponents of neighboring. American Journal of Commu-
Jossey-Bass. nity Psychology, 13, 139–169.
Shinn, M., & Toohey, S. (2003). Community contexts of Wellman, B. (1981). Applying network analysis to the
human welfare. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, study of support. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social net-
427–459. works and social support (pp. 171–200). London:
Skjaevelan, O., Gärling, T., & Maeland, J. (1996). Sage.
A multidimensional measure of neighboring. American Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes for
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413–435. different folks: Community ties and social support. The
Turner, R., & Turner, J. (1999). Social integration and American Journal of Sociology, 96, 558–588.
support. In C. Aneshensel & J. Phelan (Eds.), Hand- Zhang, Y., Yeager, V. A., & Hou, S. (2018). The impact of
book of the sociology of mental health (pp. 301–319). community-based supports and services on quality of
New York: Kluwer/Plenum. life among the elderly in China: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Applied Gerontology, 7, 1244–1269.