PDF(1667 KB)
认知性社会资本与主观幸福感：智能时代数字不平等的影响因素——基于CGSS数据的实证分析
杨雅, 苏芳, 喻国明
国际新闻界 ›› 2025, Vol. 47 ›› Issue (3) : 109-130.
PDF(1667 KB)
PDF(1667 KB)
认知性社会资本与主观幸福感：智能时代数字不平等的影响因素——基于CGSS数据的实证分析
Cognitive Social Capital and Subjective Well-Being: The Crux to Digital Inequality in the Artificial Intelligent Era—Evidence from CGSS Data
本研究意图兼顾结构性与能动性因素，探索主客观相对不平等维度对数字不平等的影响，基于中国综合社会调查（CGSS 2017）数据，分析结构性社会资本、认知性社会资本、相对剥夺和主观幸福感影响数字不平等的程度、路径与群体差异。数据分析发现，认知性社会资本和主观幸福感是影响感知数字不平等的关键因素，其中，认知性社会资本显著负向预测数字不平等，在男性或者青年群体中更为显著；主观幸福感同样显著负向预测数字不平等，在女性或者青年群体中表现显著；相对剥夺与结构性社会资本影响不显著。因此，研究认为，数字不平等是一个多视角、多维度、多阶段的议题，在确定增进数字平等的干预措施时，需要从长期视角，结合社会与技术发展前景与预测，整体考虑多方因素如主客观社会资本、心理资本等，采取多主体、多层面、多维度的综合性措施。
The study aimed to explore the impact of relatively objective and subjective dimensions on digital inequality, considering both structural and agency factors. Based on data from the China General Social Survey (CGSS 2017), the study analyzed the degree, pathways, and group discrepancies of how structural social capital, cognitive social capital, relative deprivation, and subjective well-being affect digital inequality. It revealed that cognitive social capital and subjective well-being were elemental factors affecting perceived digital inequality, among which cognitive social capital significantly negatively predicted digital inequality, particularly in male or youth groups; and subjective well-being also significantly negatively predicted digital inequality, particularly among women or young people; while the relative deprivation and structural social capital had no significant impact. Therefore, it suggests that digital inequality should be a multi-perspective, multi-dimensional, and multi-stage issue. When determining intervention measures to enhance digital equality, it is necessary to take a long-term perspective, combine social and technological development prospects and predictions, and consider integrated factors as a whole, such as subjective and objective social capital, psychological capital, and adopt comprehensive measures with multiple subjects, levels, and dimensions.
数字（不）平等 / 认知性社会资本 / 结构性社会资本 / 相对剥夺 / 主观幸福感
Digital (in)equality / cognitive social capital / structural social capital / relative deprivation / subjective well-being
| [1] |
边燕杰, 肖阳(2014). 中英居民主观幸福感比较研究. 《社会学研究》,(2),22-42+242.
|
| [2] |
陈梦根, 周元任(2022). 数字不平等研究新进展. 《经济学动态》,(4),123-139.
|
| [3] |
邓渝, 邵云飞(2016). 创新网络结构性社会资本对个人知识收益的影响. 《中国科技论坛》,(7),130-134.
|
| [4] |
傅利平, 贾才毛加(2017). 公共服务满意度、社会资本与居民主观幸福感关系研究——基于中国综合社会调查(CGSS)2013的实证分析. 《天津大学学报(社会科学版)》,(4),321-326.
|
| [5] |
黄云, 任国强, 周云波(2019). 收入不平等对农村居民身心健康的影响——基于CGSS 2015数据的实证分析. 《农业技术经济》,(3),25-37.
|
| [6] |
姬德强, 蒋效妹, 朱泓宇(2023). 重思数字不平等. 《新闻与写作》,(9),113.
|
| [7] |
姜俊丰(2023). 互联网使用增加了个人社会资本吗?一个“工具—表达”价值的二元视角. 《社会发展研究》,(4),103-125+240.
|
| [8] |
金兼斌(2003). 数字鸿沟的概念辨析. 《新闻与传播研究》,(1),75-79+95.
|
| [9] |
刘骏, 张蕾, 俞立平(2019). 中国数字鸿沟评估研究:基于移动通信工具视角. 《统计与决策》,(5),32-35.
|
| [10] |
迈克尔·斯特雷文斯(2020/2022). 《知识机器》(任烨译). 中信出版社.
|
| [11] |
缪晓雷, 杨珅, 边燕杰(2023). 互联网时代的社会资本:网民与非网民比较. 《社会学研究》,(3),91-111.
|
| [12] |
潘泽泉(2019). 社会资本影响个人健康水平吗?——基于CGSS 2008的中国经验证据. 《浙江社会科学》,(1),66-78+157-158.
|
| [13] |
邱泽奇, 张樹沁, 刘世定, 许英康(2016). 从数字鸿沟到红利差异——互联网资本的视角. 《中国社会科学》,(10),93-115+203-204.
|
| [14] |
任国强, 石玉成(2016). 我国农村居民个体收入剥夺的决定因素研究——基于CGSS 2010数据的实证分析. 《农业技术经济》,(1),48-59.
|
| [15] |
宋佳莹, 高传胜(2023). 基本养老保险制度与居民收入不平等:影响与机制分析——基于个体相对剥夺视角. 《西南民族大学学报(人文社会科学版),(2),153-164.
|
| [16] |
苏林森(2023). 看电视如何影响幸福感?——直接效果和社会交往、物质主义的中介效应分析. 《国际新闻界》,(11),41-60.
|
| [17] |
汤新云, 张燕(2024). 数字鸿沟、家庭资本与教育投资. 《合肥工业大学学报(社会科学版),(4),18-29.
|
| [18] |
王卫东(2006). 中国城市居民的社会网络资本与个人资本. 《社会学研究》,(3),151-166+245.
|
| [19] |
韦路, 秦璇(2023). 主客观知识沟:知识沟研究的新方向. 《新闻与传播研究》,(2),53-67+127.
|
| [20] |
吴玉锋, 雷晓康, 聂建亮(2019). 从“结构”到“认知”:社会资本与流动人口社会融合——基于2014年中国劳动力动态调查数据. 《人口与发展》,(5),111-122.
|
| [21] |
闫慧(2011). 数字鸿沟研究的未来:境外数字不平等研究进展. 《中国图书馆学报》,(4),87-93.
|
| [22] |
严宇琼, 孙秀林(2023). 文化杂食视角下的数字不平等. 《社会学评论》,(3),84-108.
|
| [23] |
赵万里, 谢榕(2020). 数字不平等与社会分层:信息沟通技术的社会不平等效应探析. 《科学与社会》,(1),32-45.
|
| [24] |
郑素侠, 李古淞(2024). 从数字接入到数字资本主义:国外数字不平等的研究热点及趋势——基于CiteSpace的可视化分析. 《郑州大学学报(哲学社会科学版)》,(4),38-46.
|
| [25] |
钟祥铭, 方兴东(2022). 数字鸿沟演进历程与智能鸿沟的兴起——基于50年来互联网驱动人类社会信息传播机制变革与演进的视角. 《新闻记者》,(8),34-46.
|
| [26] |
周尚君, 谢林杉(2024). 论数字不平等:理论框架与治理路径. 《社会科学》,(1),181-192.
|
| [27] |
This study examined the accuracy of measuring happiness by a single item (Do you feel happy in general?) answered on an 11-point scale (0–10). Its temporal stability was 0.86. The correlations between the single item and both the Oxford Happiness Inventory (OHI; Argyle,\n Martin, & Lu, 1995; Hills & Argyle, 1998) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985; Pavot & Diener, 1993) were highly significant and positive, denoting good concurrent validity. Moreover, the single item had a good convergent validity because\n it was highly and positively correlated with optimism, hope, self-esteem, positive affect, extraversion, and self-ratings of both physical and mental health. Furthermore, the divergent validity of the single item has been adequately demonstrated through its significant and negative correlations\n with anxiety, pessimism, negative affect, and insomnia. It was concluded that measuring happiness by a single item is reliable, valid, and viable in community surveys as well as in cross-cultural comparisons.
|
| [28] |
|
| [29] |
This article presents a conceptual model that explores the extent to which various (non)-users can be subjected to mechanisms of inclusion or exclusion. The model consists of eight profiles of digital inequalities, ranging from deep exclusion to deep inclusion, and is based upon a combination of five key indicators at the social level (income, education, social participation, agency, well-being) and eight key indicators at the digital level (access, attitudes, digital skills, soft skills, media richness of the environment, autonomy of use, user practices and social support). This conceptual model, by going further than socio-demographics, (a) allows the formulation of an alternative lens through which to look at mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion and (b) brings a significant contribution to existing research by highlighting the co-action of social and digital indicators in mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion.
|
| [30] |
|
| [31] |
|
| [32] |
|
| [33] |
Based on Bourdieu’s theory, this article focuses on the third-level digital divide in relation to offline outcomes of Internet use. Based on 30 in-depth qualitative interviews with young people in Madrid, we analyzed the mechanisms used to convert three main forms of capital—economic, cultural, and social—into digital capital (DC) and the subsequent reconversion of DC back into the three main forms of capital. We conclude that economic capital is the most basic form of digital inequality, imposing material barriers to access. Cultural capital is transformed into DC through people’s techno-socialization, while social capital is converted into DC by means of social practices and social support. DC can be retransformed into each of the three main forms of capital: to economic capital by means of professional networking and access to goods; to cultural capital through access to knowledge; and into social capital by the differential management of social ties.
|
| [34] |
|
| [35] |
The number of mobile phone subscriptions worldwide reached almost 7 billion in 2013. Therefore, the social and psychological consequences of the technology are of great interest to new media scholars and policy makers. Adopting an affordance-based approach, this study examines how different uses of the mobile phone are related to individuals’ subjective well-being and social capital. Findings from a national survey showed that both voice and online communication with the mobile phone is positively related to various indicators of subjective well-being and bonding and bridging capital. Moreover, both bonding and bridging capital mediated the relationship between mobile phone use and subjective well-being. On the other hand, non-communicative uses, such as information seeking activities, were negatively related to positive affect and passing time activities were positively related to negative affect. Implications of the findings are discussed.
|
| [36] |
|
| [37] |
|
| [38] |
|
| [39] |
|
| [40] |
|
| [41] |
With growing recognition of the social determinants of health, social capital is an increasingly important concept in international health research. Although there is relatively little experience of measuring social capital, particularly in developing countries, there are now a number of studies that allow the identification of some key issues that need to be considered when measuring social capital. After summarizing definitions and the rise of interest in the link between social capital and health, measures used in key studies of social capital and health are presented. Some important issues are then considered: obtaining a sufficiently comprehensive measure which empirically captures the latest theoretical developments in the field (particularly the concepts of cognitive, structural, bonding and bridging social capital); moving from the individual to the ecological level; consideration of confounding factors, and validity and reliability.
|
| [42] |
|
| [43] |
|
| [44] |
Generational differences are seen as the cause of wide shifts in our ability to engage with technologies and the concept of the digital native has gained popularity in certain areas of policy and practice. This paper provides evidence, through the analysis of a nationally representative survey in the UK, that generation is only one of the predictors of advanced interaction with the Internet. Breadth of use, experience, gender and educational levels are also important, indeed in some cases more important than generational differences, in explaining the extent to which people can be defined as a digital native. The evidence provided suggests that it is possible for adults to become digital natives, especially in the area of learning, by acquiring skills and experience in interacting with information and communication technologies. This paper argues that we often erroneously presume a gap between educators and students and that if such a gap does exist, it is definitely possible to close it.
|
| [45] |
|
| [46] |
|
| [47] |
We provide evidence for multidirectionality, variability, and plasticity in the nature and direction of change in physical health, cognitive functioning, and well-being during the middle years of the life course. The picture of well-being in midlife based on longitudinal data from the Midlife in the United States (MIDUS) study is a more positive one than portrayed in previous cross-sectional studies. We present middle age as a pivotal period in the life course in terms of balancing growth and decline, linking earlier and later periods of life, and bridging younger and older generations. We highlight the role of protective factors and multisystem resilience in mitigating declines. Those in middle age play a central role in the lives of those who are younger and older at home, in the workplace, and in society at large. Thus, a focus on promoting health and well-being in middle age can have a far-reaching impact.
|
| [48] |
|
| [49] |
|
| [50] |
|
| [51] |
|
| [52] |
|
| [53] |
This article develops a Digital Capital Index by adopting the definition provided by Ragnedda, who defines Digital Capital as the accumulation of digital competencies and digital technologies, and the model for measuring it developed by Ragnedda and Ruiu. It aims to develop a measure that can be replicated for comparison in different contexts. This article contributes both theoretically and empirically to the literature by (a) consolidating the concept of Digital Capital as a specific capital and (b) empirically measuring it. A Digital Capital Index is developed through an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and validated with a representative sample survey of 868 UK citizens. The validation procedure shows that the Digital Capital Index is associated with socioeconomic and sociodemographic patterns, such as age, income, educational level and place of residence, while it appears not to be related to gender.
|
| [54] |
|
| [55] |
|
| [56] |
|
| [57] |
|
| [58] |
|
| [59] |
|
| [60] |
Uncorrectable skew and heteroscedasticity are among the "lemons" of psychological data, yet many important variables naturally exhibit these properties. For scales with a lower and upper bound, a suitable candidate for models is the beta distribution, which is very flexible and models skew quite well. The authors present maximum-likelihood regression models assuming that the dependent variable is conditionally beta distributed rather than Gaussian. The approach models both means (location) and variances (dispersion) with their own distinct sets of predictors (continuous and/or categorical), thereby modeling heteroscedasticity. The location sub-model link function is the logit and thereby analogous to logistic regression, whereas the dispersion sub-model is log linear. Real examples show that these models handle the independent observations case readily. The article discusses comparisons between beta regression and alternative techniques, model selection and interpretation, practical estimation, and software.((c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved).
|
| [61] |
|
| [62] |
|
| [63] |
|
| [64] |
|
| [65] |
|
| [66] |
|
/
| 〈 |
|
〉 |
