Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
There appears to be widespread acceptance that there is a general positive correlation between ‘social support’ and well‐being. Individuals' health may remain better and their recovery from certain diseases more likely when potential, if not actual, social support is available. This paper addresses two specific methodological problems. Firstly, the definition of ‘social support’ varies very widely in the literature. Furthermore, whilst other variables may be rigorously controlled, the ‘social support’ variable may still be a proxy for other factors. The lack of international agreement on a common meaning for social support vitiates comparative analysis. Secondly, in an attempt to explain why some societies are ‘healthier’ than others, Wilkinson points to an association between more egalitarian societies, ‘better’ micro‐social relationships and better health. This attempt to explain societal differences in terms of micro‐social processes is problematic. First, individuals with good social support may still be healthier in ‘unhealthy’ societies than those without such support in ‘healthy’ societies. Extrapolation of individual outcomes may not be the best way to explain societal differences. Secondly, it is not demonstrated that specific micro‐social processes either cause or are caused by the institutional, organizational and political contexts, which variously characterize more healthy or less healthy societies amongst the most developed nations.
R. E. Pahl (Wed,) studied this question.