Delineating personal support networks

Social Networks 15 (1993) 49-70

North-Holland

49

Delineating personal support networks *

Mart G.M. van der Poe1 Department of Sociology, University of Nijmegen, PO Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, Netherlands

Of the four main approaches to the delineation of personal networks the exchange approach

yields the most satisfying results when a specific part of the network is to be traced. In this

article an instrument for delineating the personal support network, consisting of ten name

generating exchange questions, is introduced. A subset of five of these questions is recom-

mended as an abbreviated instrument which is able to trace a substantial and representative part

of the personal support network.

1. Introduction

Man is a social creature. Relationships with other human beings are of crucial importance to his well-being. Someone who is deprived of every form of human contact will lose many human traits and probably will not even be able to stay alive. The beneficial effect of social relationships on well-being, physical as well as psychological, has been demonstrated in many studies (see d’Abbs 1982 for an overview).

Most people have contact, frequent or sporadic, with a great many other people (Boissevain 1974; Pool and Kochen 1978). This set of relationships an individual has is called his egocentred or personal network (Barnes 1972; Mitchell 1969; Pappi 1987). In the literature one assumes, implicitly or explicitly, that only a specific part of this large total personal network is relevant to a person’s well-being (Fischer 1982a; Nisbet 1969; Simmel 1950; Wellman 1979; Wirth 1938).

In this article four approaches to the delineation of personal networks will be discussed and their ability to trace the supportive

Correspondence to: M.G.M. van der Poel, Department of Sociology, University of Nijmegen, PO

Box 9108, 6500 HK Nijmegen, Netherlands.

* This research was supported by a grant from the Queen Juliana Fund (KJF) and the Fund Research Social Services (FOMD).

03788733/93/$06.00 0 1993 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. All rights reserved

50 M.G.M. uan der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks

part of the personal network or, in other words, the personal support network will be evaluated. Subsequently, analyses will be carried out to arrive at an instrument that is able to trace a substantial part of the personal support network and, at the same time, is short and easy to administer.

2. Approaches to delineating personal networks

Four methods of delineating personal networks are generally distinguished, namely the interaction, the role relation, the affective and the exchange approach (McCallister and Fischer 1978; Van Tilburg 1985; Milardo 1987).

The interaction approach asks people to keep a record of all contacts they have during a certain period of time (Cubitt 1973; Milardo et al. 1983; Nezlek et al. 1983; Turner 1967). Sometimes a quicker but less reliable method is used, namely asking to recall all the contacts of the last week or so. The main disadvantage of the interaction approach is that it does not take into account the content of the relationship. It seems improbable that contact, including for instance pure business-like contact, is supportive in its own right. In other words, mere contact is too general to serve as a criterion for delineating the personal support network.

The role relation approach assumes that individuals are primarily influenced by the people with whom they have a culturally circum- scribed role relationship that is accompanied by a specific set of expectations, obligations and rights (Kleiner and Parker 1976). Many students of personal relationships limit their research to one or a few of these role relationships, for instance the family, relatives, neighbours and friends (Arling 1976; Dickens and Perlman 1981; Hoyt and Babchuck 1983; Laumann 1973; Litwak and Szelenyi 1969; Sudman 1988; Wood and Robertson 1978). This is of course legitimate but as a delineation criterion for the personal support network it is less appro- priate. Despite the fact that role relationships are culturally circum- scribed there is still a large variation between individuals in the actual content of these relationships. Some people, for instance, have almost no contact with their relatives while others do not even know their neighbours. Furthermore, this method overlooks the relationships which are not defined normatively but are nevertheless supportive.

M.G.M. van der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks 51

Another difficulty arises when people are asked to name their friends. The meaning of the word “friend” varies considerably across cultures and individuals (Fischer 1982b; McCallister and Fischer 1978). Re- search shows for instance that working-class and middle-class people have different ideas about what a friend is or should be (Allan 1977; Burt 1983).

The subjective value a relationship has for a person is the starting point of the affective approach. People are asked, for example, to name the persons with whom they have a close personal relationship (Wellman 1979; Van Tilburg 1988) or the ones who are especially important to them (Kahn and Antonucci 1980). The main advantage of this approach, the importance of a relationship being determined directly by the individual itself, is at the same time a major disadvantage. The researcher does not know which criteria are being used in these subjective evaluations of the importance of relationships. People may, for instance, judge importance in terms of normative expectations, while the researcher is interested in the emotionally supportive content of a relationship (Milardo 1987). Furthermore, not all people use the same criteria. This makes it difficult to compare the personal networks thus delineated, because differences will, to a large extent, be artefacts of the method used (McCallister and Fischer 1978). Finally, the possibility that less intimate relationships, such as neighbours and acquaintances, can also be supportive is completely ignored (Milardo 1986).

The exchange approach, based on the theory of social exchange (Homans 1961; Thibaut and Kelley 19591, assumes that “people who are sources of rewarding interactions will be particularly important in shaping respondents’ attitudes and behavior” (McCallister and Fis- cher 1978). These rewarding interactions are being operationalised, resulting in a set of specific criteria for delineating the personal network. Examples of questions asked are “with whom do you talk about personal worries?” “ with whom do you engage in social activities (like inviting home for dinner, or going to a movie)?” and “who, if any, helped with household tasks in the last three months?“.

These interactions are considered to be supportive, and in the literature they are therefore subsumed in the general concept of “social support”. Thoits (1985) defines social support as “helpful functions performed for an individual by significant others such as family members, friends, co-workers, relatives and neighbours. These

52 M. G. M. uan der Peel / Delineating personal support networks

functions typically include socio-emotional aid, instrumental aid and informational aid”.

Social support is generally divided into a number of dimensions (Cobb 1976; Cohen and Wills 1985; House 1981; Thoits 1982). The conceptually clearest distinction is the one between emotional support and instrumental support (Veiel 1985; Wills 1985). Instrumental support is defined as supplying material or tangible support through goods or services, while emotional support entails giving advice and talking about personal problems, In addition to these two support dimensions a third dimension is sometimes distinguished, namely “social companionship” or the sharing of social activities. Although people generally do not think of these activities in terms of support, they are often supportive in their own right (Fischer 1982a; Wills 1985).

The exchange approach to delineating personal support networks has two major advantages, First, the specified interactions are in- stances of social support and therefore pre-eminently suitable for delineating the personal support network. Second, the interactions are very specific and, therefore, likely to be interpreted in the same way by all respondents,

A disadvantage of the exchange approach is that potentially supportive relationships in which no recent supportive interactions have occurred are not taken into account. Some researchers argue that these relationships also positively affect a person’s well-being (Wills 1985). In the literature a distinction is made between a “main effect” and a “stress-buffering effect” (Cohen and Wills 1985; Hammer 1981; Thoits 1985; Wills 1985).

The stress-buffering effect only operates in times of crisis when actual support is needed. The support from the personal network buffers the detrimental effect of stress on well-being.

On the other hand, the main effect of personal relationships on well-being is also in effect when there is no actual support needed. The knowledge alone that there are a number of persons one can turn to when help is needed has a positive effect on well-being.

In focusing on the actual recent supportive content of a relationship the exchange approach fails to acknowledge the existence of the main effect. In the general population, as opposed to specific subpopula- tions going through some major crisis, the main effect will probably be the most important factor determining well-being.

M.G.M. uan der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks 53

In order to tap this main effect one must focus on the potential supportive content of a relationship instead of merely on the actual supportive content (e.g. “Suppose you have the flu and must stay in bed for a couple of days. Whom would you ask to take care of you or to do your shopping?“). The personal support network thus delineated is a pool of potentially supportive persons, assessed independ- ent of the actual or recent need for support.

The question remains how people know which personal relationships are potentially supportive. What are these expectations based on and are they justified? Research shows that most people build their expectations of future support on experiences from the past (Van Tilburg 1985). And even if a person has no experience at all with some specific kind of support, she will generally still be able to judge from other relationship contents whom she can turn to. The assumption that expectations of future support are well-grounded and justified is corroborated by our finding that very few people have recently been disappointed in their expectations of support (Felling et al. 1991).

After reviewing these four approaches, the conclusion must be that if one is interested in delineating a clearly and objectively defined part of the personal network, in this case the personal support network, the exchange approach is the most promising one. The respondents will, to a much larger extent than with the affective approach, inter- pret the delineating questions in the same way. Differences in personal network size and composition are therefore true differences and not artefacts of the method used. Furthermore, the exchange approach is more effective than the role relation and interaction approach because it ensures that only the relevant persons, in this case the potential sources of support, are included in the network.

This conclusion is generally supported in the literature, especially when it concerns the personal support network and its positive influence on well-being (d’Abbs 1982; Milardo 1987; Ormel et al. 1989; Pfenning and Pfenning 1987). Still, the exchange approach is not as widely employed as one would expect from this general acknowledge- ment. Many researchers think it is too complicated and too time-con- suming, and they take refuge with one of the other methods or a combination of them (Berkman and Syme 1979; Hoyt and Babchuk 1983; Longino and Lipman 1982; Tietjen 1985; Van Tilburg 1988). Others use only one exchange question, which generally refers to the emotional support within a relationship (Burt 1984; Marsden 1987).

54 M. G.M. oan der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks

The most important characteristic of the exchange approach is its use of several, clearly defined, and relevant relationship contents to delineate the personal network. Most researchers assume, following McCallister and Fischer (19781, that, in order to delineate the personal support network, about ten different supportive interactions, so-called name generators, are required. These questions will, however, be more or less redundant because after a number of questions no or very few new names will be generated (Burt 1983).

In this article, a ten-item instrument to delineate the personal support network is introduced, based on the exchange approach of McCallister and Fischer (1978). I will assume that the persons mentioned in response to these questions constitute the total personal support network. Subsequently, I will try to find a subset of name generators which on the one hand is able to trace a substantial and representative part of this total personal support network, and on the other hand is short and easy to administer.

3. Method

In the spring of 1987 a national survey on primary relations and social support was conducted. A sample of 902 persons between 20 and 72 years was inte~iewed using standardised questionnaires. The sample is representative of the Dutch population considering sex, age, and degree of urbanisation. With respect to marital status, the married are slightly overrepresented. When the amount of redundancy in the name generating questions for the married differ markedly from the rest of the population, generalisations become hazardous. This appears not to be the case, so the findings can trustfully be generalised to the entire Dutch population between 20 and 72 years.

In order to delineate the personal support network ten name generating questions are asked conceding specific supportive interactions. Some of these questions were borrowed from the inst~ment developed by McCallister and Fischer (1978). Because the potentially supportive relationships are to be traced, the questions are formulated hypothetically, with the obvious exception of the two social companionship items.

The ten name generators are subdivided into three support dimensions, “emotional support”, “instrumental support”, and “social com-

M.G.M. van der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks 55

panionship” (Molin and Van der Poe1 1987; House 1981: Wills 1985). Five of the ten name generators are reserved for instrumental support, because this dimension covers the broadest range of supportive interactions. The name generators are formulated as follows:

Emotional support 1. Suppose you have serious problems with your partner which

you cannot discuss with him or her. With whom would you talk about such problems?

2. Suppose you are feeling depressed and you want to talk to someone about it. With whom would you talk about such problems?

3. Suppose you need advice with a major change in your life, for instance changing jobs or moving to another area. Whom would you ask for advice if such a major change occurred in your life?

Instrumental support 4. Suppose you need help with jobs in or around the house, for

instance holding a ladder or moving furniture. Whom would you ask for this kind of help?

5. Suppose you have the flu and must stay in bed for a couple of days. Whom would you ask to take care of you or to do your shopping?

6. Suppose you need to borrow a large sum of money. Whom would you ask?

7. Suppose you need sugar or something like that and the shops are closed, or you need a piece of equipment. Whom would you ask to lend you these sort of things?

8. Suppose you have problems with filling in forms, for instance tax forms, or with your administration. Whom would you ask for help with such problems?

Social companionship 9. With whom do you go out once in a while, for instance

shopping, going for a walk, going to a restaurant or to a movie? 10. With whom do you have contact at least once a month, by

visiting each other for a chat, a cup of coffee, a drink or a game of cards?

56 M. G.M. uan der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks

With each of these ten questions the respondent is allowed to mention up to five persons. If more than five are mentioned he or she is asked to give the five most important ones. When all support network members are thus identified the respondent is asked to give the role relationships he or she has with those persons. Since two people can have more than one role relationship up to three different role relationships can be mentioned. The term “friend” is most frequently used in combination with other role relationships. In order to simplify the analyses the information is narrowed down to the one role relationship which most likely constitutes the origin of the relationship (Fischer 1982a). This particularly affects the category of friends, which now only contains persons who are “just friends” and nothing else (Fischer 1982a). The other categories are “partner”, “parent”, “child”, “sibling”, “other kin”, “co-worker”, “neighbour”, “acquaintance” and “fellow member of an association”. The “parent” category also contains parents-in-law, children-in-law fall into the “child” category, and siblings-in-law are categorised as siblings.

The next paragraph begins with a short description of the personal support networks delineated with the ten aforementioned name generators. Attention is paid to the size of the network and its composition in terms of the role relationship between the respondent and the network member. In order to find out whether some name generating questions cover specific parts of the support network, the analysis is repeated for each name generator separately.

Then, a subset of name generators is looked for which contains as few questions as possible and is still able to cover a substantial part of the total personal support network. The first criterion is the amount of variance in total support network size explained by the size of the network delineated by the subset. The second criterion is the composition of the network in terms of role relationships: Each category must be adequately represented. The final criterion used is the distribution of the name generators over the support dimensions. A subset where each support dimension is represented is, other things being equal, preferred.

4. Results

The average personal support network size, delineated with the full instrument of ten name generators, is 9.9 with a standard deviation of

140 r 120 !

-I

100 f r : 80

U

e n 60

F 40

20

0 ~

0 5 10 15 20 25

M.G.M. uan der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks

Fig. 1. Support network size.

supportnetworksize

57

3.0. This average, as well as the other analyses, is based on the 882 respondents who answered all ten name generating questions.

In Fig. 1 the frequency distribution of the personal support network size is shown. While the support network size ranges from 1 to 21, about 40% of the Dutch population have eight to ten persons at their disposal on whom they can rely for social support.

The distribution of the network members over the role relationship categories is displayed graphically in Fig. 2. Over half of the network members (53%) are relatives, mainly close kin like partner, parents, children, and siblings. The more distant kin like grandparents, grand- children, aunts and uncles are, however, scarcely mentioned (2%). Furthermore a substantial part of the network consists of friends (18%) and neighbours (16%). The other, often neglected, categories (co-workers, acquaintances and fellow members of associations) still cover 13% of the personal support network. The question now addressed is whether a smaller set of name generators will suffice to trace a substantial part of the personal support networks described above.

From Table 1 we learn that one single name generating question cannot trace a reasonable part of the total support network. The


Friends \

Parents

Partner

Children

18% 7 Neighbours

Association members 3%

Acquaintances 6%

Co-workers 4%

16%

Fig. 2. Support network composition.

question on “visiting” generates a third of all the support network members. This percentage can, however, vary a great deal between respondents. If one wants to know how well the size of the network thus generated predicts the size of the total support network, the explained variance is the proper criterion. Here, the “going out

Table 1 Average number of persons mentioned, and variance in total support network size explained

(N = 882)

Name generator

Problems with partner Feeling depressed

Major life change

Jobs around the house

Help with flu

Borrowing money

Borrowing things

Help with forms

Going out together

Visiting

Average Explained

size variance

1.64 9.6 2.11 6.3 2.69 11.0

2.98 14.5 2.65 10.5 0.50 6.2 2.39 18.1 1.04 7.4

3.39 19.5 3.77 16.7

M.G.M. can der Poe1 / Delineating personaf support networks 59

together” item performs best and explains nearly 20% of the variance in the total support network size.

The other criterion taken into account is the distribution of the persons mentioned over the role relationship categories. In Table 2 the percentage of persons in each category traced by every single name generator is shown.

No single name generating question succeeds in covering all role relationship categories adequately. To a small extent, this is caused by design. Partners could not be mentioned with respect to “problems with partner” and household members could not be mentioned with respect to “borrowing things” and “visiting”. Another, more important reason is that most network members are “specialists”. People rely on them only for specific kinds of support (Felling et al. 1991).

“Visiting” traces a reasonable part of most role relationship categories but has the disadvantage that household members cannot be mentioned. “Jobs around the house” and “help with flu” cover a bit of everything, but with respect to more than half of the role relationship categories less than 20% is traced.

From the results so far it is clear that more than one name generator is needed to obtain an accurate representation of the total support network. The first question to be answered is “how many name generators are needed?” and second “which name generators?”

It is not at all certain that the combination of items which individu- ally explain the largest amount of variance will be the best predictor of total support network size. When two items to a large extent generate the same persons, adding the second item will barely enlarge the amount of variance explained. For the same reason, a stepwise regres- sion procedure is unsuitable for selecting the most effective subset of name generators. The only way to be sure of that is by constructing all possible subsets and, for each subset, counting the number of unique persons mentioned and calculating the amount of variance in the total support network size it explains.

In answer to the first question some global analyses (not shown) suggest that with half of the items (five) a maximum of 80435% of the variance can be explained. Adding another item raises the explained variance by less than 5%. Dropping one, however, lowers it to 70-75%. A set of five name generators thus seems to be the most cost-effective number to delineate the personal support network.

Tab

le

2

Perc

enta

ge

of

pers

ons

in e

ach

role

re

latio

nshi

p ca

tego

ry

trac

ed

by

a si

ngle

na

me

gene

rato

r

Nam

e ge

nera

tor

Part

ner

Pare

nt

Chi

ld

Sibl

ing

Oth

er

Frie

nd

co-

Nei

gh-

Ac-

Fe

llow

ki

n w

orke

r bo

ur

quai

nt.

mem

ber

Prob

lem

s w

ith

part

ner

a 0

30

19

22

10

25

21

3 4

13

Feel

ing

depr

esse

d 79

25

15

18

10

25

25

4

6 14

Maj

or

life

chan

ge

83

45

34

21

13

21

26

4 8

15

Jobs

ar

ound

th

e ho

use

70

20

38

26

21

17

12

40

18

15

Hel

p w

ith

flu

87

30

38

16

13

13

9 22

11

14

Bor

row

ing

mon

ey

4 21

2

7 6

1 3

0 2

0

Bor

row

ing

thin

gs

b 2

19

8 15

16

18

13

76

20

17

Hel

p w

ith

form

s 35

12

5

11

14

5 20

3

14

7

Goi

ng

out

toge

ther

88

20

53

24

22

45

31

8

18

29

Vis

iting

’

6 50

19

39

43

68

37

25

41

60

N

in s

uppo

rt

netw

ork

728

1104

13

41

1128

17

5 14

93

333

1344

49

8 21

3 __

a W

ith

resp

ect

to

prob

lem

s w

ith

part

ner,

the

part

ner

coul

d no

t be

m

entio

ned.

b W

ith

resp

ect

to b

orro

win

g th

ings

an

d vi

sitin

g,

hous

ehol

d m

embe

rs

coul

d no

t be

m

entio

ned.


Table 3 Average number of persons mentioned with a set of five name generators, and variance in total

support network size explained (N = 882)

Name generator Average

size

Explained

variance

3 4 7 9 10 8.84 83.7

1 4 7 9 10 8.69 80.8

3 5 7 9 10 8.46 78.7

2 4 7 9 10 8.64 78.3

3 4 5 9 10 8.38 78.1

4 7 8 9 10 8.69 78.0

3 7 8 9 10 8.44 78.0

3 4 8 9 10 8.29 77.7

1 3 4 9 10 8.23 77.5

1 3 7 9 10 8.37 77.4

Total in support network 9.94 100.0

The absolute minimum number of items to obtain a fairly good picture of the personal support network seems to be three. With such a small subset still 55-60% of the variance in total support network size is explained. With two name generators this is no more than 35-40%.

The first question, how many name generators are needed, can be answered in the following manner. A set of three name generating questions is the absolute minimum needed to get a rough idea of the total support network size. However, with a little extra effort, namely five items, 80-85% of the variance in total support network size can be explained.

The second question, which name generators should be selected, will first be answered for a set five and then for a set of three items. In Tables 3-6 only the ten subsets which explain the largest amount of variance are presented.

The combination of “major life changes”, “jobs around the house”, “borrowing things”, “going out together” and “visiting” explains the largest amount of variance (83.7%). Furthermore, it is noteworthy that both social companionship items appear in each of the ten subsets.

As can be seen in Table 4, the aforementioned combination succeeds in tracing over 75% of every role relationship category. This is only equalled by the combination of “jobs around the house”, “borrowing things”, “help with forms”, “going out together” and “visiting”

Tab

le 4

Pe

rcen

tage

of

per

sons

in

eac

h ro

le r

elat

ions

hip

cate

gory

tr

aced

by

a s

et o

f fi

ve n

ame

gene

rato

rs

Nam

e ge

nera

tors

Pa

rtne

r Pa

rent

C

hild

Si

blin

g O

ther

ki

n Fr

iend

C

O-

wor

ker

Nei

gh-

bour

A

c-

quai

nt.

Fello

w-

mem

ber

3 4

7 9

10

98

87

93

81

1 4

7 9

10

95

82

90

81

3 5

7 9

to

98

88

90

73

2 4

7 9

10

99

79

88

79

3 4

5 9

10

99

89

96

81

4 7

8 9

10

96

78

87

80

3 7

8 9

10

97

86

83

75

3 4

8 9

10

98

86

93

83

1 3

4 9

10

98

87

93

83

1 3

7 Y

10

Y

6 87

84

74

N i

n su

ppor

t ne

twor

k 72

8 11

04

1341

11

28

7.5

91

76

96

80

86

76

94

67

95

78

87

71

88

73

90

13

84

77

93

71

95

78

89

74

90

75

67

75

84

81

91

75

96

89

88

74

89

85

88

82

86

17

90

87

60

83

85

74

93

77

58

72

83

71

92

74

86

71

84

175

1493

33

3 13

44

498

213

M.G.M. mm der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks 63

Table 5

Average number of persons mentioned with a set of three name generators, and variance in total

support network size explained (N = 882)

Name generator Average

size

Explained

variance

4 9 10 7.29 58.4 7 9 10 1.25 57.3 3 9 10 6.70 55.4 3 7 10 6.98 54.3 3 4 10 7.00 54.2 3 7 9 6.45 52.2 4 7 10 7.05 51.6 3 4 9 6.19 51.0 5 9 10 6.68 50.8 4 5 10 6.97 50.7

Total in support network 9.94 100.0

(sixth row). Still, this combination seems to be a bit weaker, especially where parents and children are concerned. Furthermore, the emotional support dimension is not represented.

Narrowing the subset down to three name generators produces the results as given in Table 5. The combination of “jobs around the house”, “going out together” and “visiting” explains the largest amount of variance (58.4%). In addition to these three items “major life changes” also frequently appears in the ten most successful subsets.

Taking the role relationship into consideration, the aforementioned combination (subset 1) traces some categories fairly well (e.g. 56% of the co-workers) and others very well (e.g. 95% of the partners). Some of the subsets perform less well with all categories. Other subsets perform better with one category, but worse with most others. The only combination that can compete with subset 1 is the one consisting of “major life changes”, “jobs around the house” and “visiting” (subset 5).

Where subset 1 has its lowest percentage (co-workers), subset 5 performs considerably better. In addition, subset 1 is better able to trace children, while with subset 5 parents are better represented.

The decisive reason why subset 5 is recommended lies in the third criterion used. Here, every support dimension is represented, while

i%

a T

able

6

is

Perc

enta

ge

of p

erso

ns

in e

ach

role

rel

atio

nshi

p ca

tego

ry

trac

ed

by a

set

of

thre

e na

me

gene

rato

rs

g ; N

ame

gene

rato

rs

Part

ner

Pare

nt

Chi

ld

Sibl

ing

Oth

er

Frie

nd

CO

- N

eigh

- A

c-

Fello

w-

kin

; w

orke

r bo

ur

quai

nt.

mem

ber

%

4 9

10

95

69

84

67

64

a5

56

58

65

76

\

7 9

10

88

65

69

58

61

85

53

86

64

77

b B

3 9

10

96

79

79

62

58

83

6.5

28

55

73

3 3

7 10

84

82

46

60

58

78

61

8.

5 61

74

f?

3 4

10

%

93

82

63

69

61

79

64

57

62

73

37

9 96

61

75

48

44

60

56

79

:

42

52

%

4 7

10

72

70

52

64

63

79

49

94

67

76

;3

34

9 98

59

87

57

46

61

58

45

42

48

3

5 9

10

96

71

79

57

57

82

53

40

57

72

P

4 5

10

96

75

66

65

63

77

49

66

62

73

%

;z

N i

n su

ppor

t ne

twor

k 72

8 11

04

1341

11

28

175

1493

33

3 13

44

498

213

??

? $ &

M. G. M. van der Poel ,/ ~~jneafjng personal super ne~or~ 65

subset 1 lacks an emotional support item and lays a very strong emphasis on social companionship.

5. Discussion

The first general conclusion of this article is that, in order to delineate the personal support network, sectera name generators are necessary pertaining to distinctive types of social support.

The exchange approach offers the most direct link between the name generators used and the supportive content of the relationships in the network. When a more general name generator is used, not directly concerning the supportive content of a relationship (e.g. role relationship, affection, or interaction), the delineated network will only partially overlap with the real support network.

A number of persons traced with these general name generators will not be part of the personal support network. The category “other kin”, for instance, plays a marginal role in the support network, while the role relation approach often explicitly takes it into account. The persons with whom we have regular contact, traced by the interaction approach, are also not necessarily part of the support network (e.g. co-workers or other more business-like contacts). Although more likely, persons who are close or important are also not necessarily supportive.

Furthermore, these approaches fail to trace several persons who are part of the personal support network. The role relation approach, for instance, seldom pays attention to co-workers, fellow members of associations and acquaintances. While the majority of the persons in these categories are indeed not important for support, some of them are. Of the support network members still 13% belong to one of these categories. The interaction approach on the other hand fails to recognize the importance of distant friends seen not very often. These relationships can, however, be or become very supportive. Finally, the affective approach wrongfully assumes that persons who are not considered important or close cannot be supportive. This is especially true for respondents who are less prone to call someone important or close.

The role relation, affective, and interaction approach thus use name generators which are too general to adequately delineate a


specific part of the personal network, in this case the personal support network.

The second conclusion of this article pertains to the number of name generators needed with the exchange approach. One exchange question is insufficient to predict the actual size of the personal support network. Making the name generator less specific, as in the General Social Survey of 1985 (“With whom do you talk about personal matters?“) probably will not improve this because with broadening the scope of the question an additional source of variance is introduced, namely the interpretation of the question by the respondents.

Assuming that the ten exchange questions used trace the complete personal support network, three questions is the absolute minimum number required to get some indication of the size of the personal support network. With the three name generators concerning “major life changes” “ jobs around the house” and “visiting” 54% of the variance in support network size is explained. For five of the role relationship categories more than two-thirds of the persons in the support network is traced. With respect to the other categories this is roughly 60%.

With some extra effort, using five name generators instead of three, considerable improvements can be made. The subset recommended as an instrument to delineate the personal support network consists of the following exchange questions: help with “major life changes” and “jobs around the house”, “borrowing things”, “going out together” and “visiting”. With this subset 84% of the variance in support network size can be explained and within every role relationship category over three-quarters of the persons in the support network is traced.

Still one question remains to be addressed, whether this set of name generators is also applicable in other countries and cultures. It is very unlikely that exactly the same subset of name generators would prove best if this analysis was to be repeated somewhere else. How- ever, I am quite confident that these questions and the types of support they represent are universal enough to make it a useful instrument for delineating personal support networks in most western, and maybe even non-western countries.

Finally, we want to stress once more that the research subject in question determines which relationship contents are important and

M.G.M. van der Poet / ~el~~atingpersonal support networks 67

which delineation method should therefore be used. Each of the four approaches discussed here has its own field of application. The major advantage of the exchange approach is that specific relationship contents are used, which makes it a more objective instrument that leaves little room for differences in interpretation between respondents. Furthermore, the approach is very flexible and can easily be adapted to specific research problems.

McCallister and Fischer (1978) developed their instrument to trace those persons who are particularly important in shaping the attitudes and behaviour of the individual involved. It has been proven to be very well suited for delineating personal support networks. Whether the exchange approach, with these or other name generators, will bear fruit in other research areas as well (e.g. the influence of the personal network on political preferences or other values and opinions) remains to be proven. Hopefully, the set of five name generating questions presented here can serve as a basic instrument which can be supplemented with additional name generators specifically relating to the research subject in question.

References

Allan, G. 1977 “Class variation in friendship patterns”. British Journal of Sociology 28: 389-393.

Arling, G. 1976 “The elderly widow and her family, neighbors and friends”. Journal of Marriage and the

Family 38: 757-768. Barnes, J._

1972 So&l networks. Philippines: Addison-Wesley. Be&man, L. and S. Syme

1979 “Social networks, host resistance and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents”. American Journal of Epidemiolosy 109: 186-204.

Boissevain, J. 1974 Friends of Friendsr Networks, Manipulators, and Coalitions. Oxford: Blackwell.

Burt, R. 1983 “Distinguishing relational contents”, in: R. Burt and M. Minor (eds.) Applied Network

Analysis: A Methodological Introduction. Beverly Hills: Sage. 1984 “Network items and the general social survey”. Social Networks 6: 293-339.

Cobb, S. 1976 “Social support as a moderator of life stress”. Psychosomatic Medicine 38: 300-314.

Cohen, S. and T. Wills 1985 “Stress, social support and the buffering hypothesis”. P~c~o~ogicaZ~u~&t~n 98: 310-356.

68 M. G.M. uan der Poel / Delineating personal support networks

Cubitt, T.

1973 “Network density among urban families”, in: J. Boissevain and J. Mitchell feds.)

Network Analysis: Studies in Human Interaction. The Hague: Mouton.

d’Abbs, P.

1982 Social Support Networks: A Critical Review of Models and Findings. Melbourne: Institute of Family Studies.

Dickens, W. and D. Perlman

1981 “Friendship over the life-cycle”, in: S. Duck and R. Gilmour (eds.) Personal Relation- ships 2: Developing Personal Relationships. London: Academic Press.

Felling, A., A. Fiselier and M. Van der Poe1

1991 Primaire relaties en sociale steun [Primary relations and social support]. Nijmegen:

Institute of Applied Social Sciences.

Fischer, C.

1982aTo Dwell Among Friends; Personal Networks in Town and City. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

1982b“What do we mean by ‘friend’? An inductive study”. Social Networks 3: 287-306. Hammer, M.

1981 “Social supports, social networks and schizophrenia”. Schizophrenia Bulletin 7: 45-57. Homans, G.

1961 Social Behauiort Its Elementary Forms. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

House, J.

1981 “The nature of social support”, in: J. House (ed.) Work Stress and Social Support. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Hoyt, D. and N. Babchuk

1983 “Adult kinship networks: the selective formation of intimate ties with kin”. Social Forces 62: 84-101.

Kahn, R. and T. Antonucci

1980 “Convoys over the life course: attachment, roles and social support”, in: P. Baltes and

0. Brim (eds.) Life-span Development and Behavior Vol. 3. New York: Academic Press.

Kleiner, R. and S. Parker

1976 “Network participation and psychological impairment in an urban environment”, in: P.

Meadows and E. Mizruchi (eds.) Urbanism, Urbanization, and Change: Comparative Perspectives. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Laumann, E. 1973 Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. New York:

Wiley.

Litwak, E. and I. Szelenyi 1969 “Primary group structures and their functions: kin, neighbors and friends”. American

SocioZogicaZ Reuiew 34: 465-481. Longino, C. and A. Lipman

1982 “The married, the formerly married, and the never married: Support system differen-

tials of older women”. International Journal of Aging and Human Development 15: 285-297.

Marsden, P. 1987 “Core discussion networks of Americans”. American Sociological Reuiew 52: 122-131.

McCallister, L. and C. Fischer 1978 “A procedure for surveying personal networks”. Sociological Methods and Research 7:

131-148. Milardo, R.

1986 “Personal choice and social constraint in close relationships: applications of network analysis”, in: V. Derlega and B. Winstead (eds.) Friendship and Social Interaction. New York: Springer Verlag.


1987 “Families and social networks: An overview of theory and methodolo~“, in: R. Milardo (ed.) Families and Social Networks. Beverly Hills: Sage.

Milardo, R., M. Johnson and T. Huston 1983 ‘“Developing close relationships: changing patterns of interaction between pair mem-

bers and social networks”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44: 964-976. Mitchell, J.

1969 “The concept and use of social networks”, in: J. Mitchell (ed.) Social Networks in Drbun Situations. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

Molin, E. and M. Van der Poe1 1987 Prtmaire Relaties en Sociale Steun; De Constructie can de Vragenlijst [Primary Relation-

ships and Social Support: The Construction of the Questionnaire]. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

Nezlek, J., L. Wheeler and H. Reis 1983 “Studies of social participation”, in: Reis (ed.) Nfffurul~~ic Approaches to .~tudy~ng

Social Interaction, No. 15. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Nisbet, R.

1969 ‘J%e Quest for Community. New York: Oxford University Press. Qrmel, J., T. van Tilburg and F. van Sonderen

1989 Personal Network Delineation and Social Support: A Comparison of Four Delineation Methods. Paper presented at the European Conference on Social Network Analysis, Groningen, The Netherlands.

Pappi, F. (ed.) 1987 Methoden der Netzwerkanalyse [Methods of Network Analysis]. Miinchen: Oldenbourg.

Pfenning, A. and U. Pfenning 1987 “Egozentrierte Netzwerke: Verschiedene Instrumente - verschiedene Ergebnisse?”

[Egocentred networks: different instruments - different results?] Zig-Nac~ric~ten 21: 64-77..

Pool, I. and M. Kochen 1978 “Contacts and lnfhrence”. Social Networks I: 5-51.

Simmel, G. 1950 “The metropolis and mental life”, in: K. Wolff (ed. and trans.) The Sociology of Georg

Simmel. Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press. (Original work published in 1902-1903.) Sudman, S.

1988 “Experiments in measuring neighbor and relative social networks”. Social Networks 10: 93-108.

Thibaut J. and H. Kelley 1959 The Social Psychology of Groups. New York: Wiley.

Thoits, P. 1982 “Conceptual, methodological and theoretical problems in studying social support as a

buffer against life stress”. Journal of Health and Sociul Beharlior 23: 145-159. 1985 “Social support and psychologi~l well-being: theoretical possibilities”, in: I. Sarason

and B. Sarason (eds.) Social Support: Theory, Research and AppZic~t~ns. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.

Tietjen, A. 1985 “The social networks and social supports of married and single mothers in Sweden”.

Journal of Marriage and the Family 47: 489-496. Turner, C.

1967 “Conjugal roles and social networks: a re-examination of an hypothesis”. Human Relations 20: 121-130.

70 M.G.M. van der Poe1 / Delineating personal support networks

Van Tilburg, T.

1985 De Betekenis van Ondersteuning in Primaire Sociale Relaties [The Meaning of Social Support in Primary Social Relationships]. Amsterdam: VU-uitgeverij.

1988 Verkregen en Gewenste Ondersteuning in het Licht van Eenzaamheidservaringen [Ob-

tained and Desired Social Support in Association with Loneliness]. Utrecht: Elinkwijk.

Veiel, H.

1985 “Dimensions of social support: a conceptual framework for research”. Social Psychiatry 20: 156-162.

Wellman, B. 1979 “The community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers”. American Journal

ofSociology 84: 1201-1231. Wills, T.

1985 “Supportive functions of interpersonal relationships”, in: S. Cohen and S. Syme (eds.)

Social Support and Health. Orlando: Academic Press.

Wirth, L. 1938 “Urbanism as a way of life”. American Journal of Sociology 44: 3-24.

Wood, V. and J. Robertson 1978 “Friendship and kinship interaction: differential effect on the morale of the elderly”.

Journal of Marriage and the Family 40: 367-375.

Documents

Delineating personal support networks