Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T06:26:43.164Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“The framily plan”: Characteristics of ties described as both “friend” and “family” in personal networks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 April 2017

AMY N. BUSH ,
ALICIA M. WALKER  and
BREA L. PERRY
AMY N. BUSH
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, USA (e-mail: amy.bush2012@gmail.com)
ALICIA M. WALKER
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology and Anthropology, Missouri State University, Springfield, Missouri, USA (e-mail: aliciawalker@missouristate.edu)
BREA L. PERRY
Affiliation:
Department of Sociology, Indiana University, Bloomington, Indiana, USA (e-mail: blperry@indiana.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Despite the growing potential for multiplexity in our complex social world, social network methodology often does not adequately capture this phenomenon. Most commonly in research on egocentric social networks, when respondent designate a tie as both family member and friend, the tendency is to default to “family” prior to aggregation for analysis, potentially ignoring important and meaningful variation. As a result, relatively little is known about multiplexity in personal social networks, and particularly about individuals who are simultaneously kin and friends. To address this gap, we assess the rate of occurrence of kinship/friendship multiplexity, and examine characteristics of alters nominated as friends and kin in comparison to those with unidimensional functionality. We find that this kind of multiplexity is fairly common–comprising about one-fifth of kinship ties and one-fourth of friendship ties. Moreover, cross–listed alters are significantly different from those characterized in one function, serving in greater capacity in terms of provision of support, frequency of contact, closeness, and as resources for discussion of important matters. Our findings underscore the critical need to appropriately classify multiplex kinship/friendship ties to avoid making incorrect inferences about support processes and their effects on outcomes across different relationship types.

Keywords

multiplexityegocentric social networkssocial tieskinshipfriendshipmethodology
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 92 - 107
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akers, J. F., Jones, R., & Coyl, D. D. (1998). Adolescent friendship pairs: Similarities in identity status development, behaviors, attitudes, and intentions. Journal of Adolescent Research, 13, 178–201.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Allan, G. (1998). Friendship, sociology and social structure. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 15 (5), 685–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Argyle, M., & Henderson, M. (1985). The rules of relationships. In Duck, S. & Perlman, D. (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships (pp. 63–84). London: Sage.Google Scholar
Autry, C. W., Williams, B. D., & Golicic, S. (2014). Relational and process multiplexity in vertical supply chain triads: An exploration in the U.S. restaurant industry. Journal of Business Logistics, 35 (1), 52–70.Google Scholar
Bagwell, C. L., Newcomb, A. F., & Bukowski, W. M. (1998). Preadolescent friendship and peer rejection as predictors of adult adjustment. Child Development, 69 (1), 140–153.Google Scholar
Bagwell, C. L., & Schmidt, M. E. (2011). Friendships in childhood and adolescence. New York, NY: Guildford Press.Google Scholar
Bearman, P., & Parigi, P. (2004). Cloning headless frogs and other important matters: Conversation topics and network structure. Social Forces, 83 (2), 535–557.Google Scholar
Bernard, H. R., Johnson, E. C., Kilworth, P. D., McCarthy, C., Shelley, G. A., & Robinson, S. Comparing different four methods for measuring personal social networks. Social Networks, 12 (3), 179–215.Google Scholar
Bliemel, M. J., McCarthy, I. P., & Maine, E. (2014). An integrated approach to studying multiplexity in entrepreneurial networks. Entrepreneurship Research Journal, 4 (4), 367–402.Google Scholar
Brass, D. J., Butterfield, K. D., & Skaggs, B. C. (1998). Relationships and unethical behavior: A social network perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23 (1), 14–31.Google Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1980). Models of network structure. Annual Review of Sociology, 6, 79–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C. (2006). Canonical correlation analysis: Assessing links between multiplex networks. Social Networks, 28 (4), 210–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Côté, R. R., Plickert, G., & Wellman, B. (2009). Does the golden rule rule? In Hsung, R.-M., Lin, N., & Breiger, R. L. (Eds.), Contexts of social capital: Social networks in markets, communities, and families (pp. 49–71). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Cross, R., Borgatti, S. P., & Parker, A. (2001). Beyond answers: Dimensions of the advice network. Social Networks, 23 (3), 215–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curran, S., McLanahan, S., & Knab, J. (2001). Ties that bind: Marital history, kinship ties and social support among older Americans. Presentation to the Population Seminar, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA. March 19, 2001.Google Scholar
Dwyer, A. L., & Cummings, A. L. (2001). Stress, self-efficacy, social support, and coping strategies in university students. Canadian Journal of Counseling, 35 (3), 208–222.Google Scholar
Edwards, R., & Gillies, V. (2012). Farewell to family? Notes on an argument for retaining the concept. Families, Relationships and Societies, 1 (1), 63–69.Google Scholar
Fehr, B. (1999). Stability and commitment in friendships. In Adams, J. M., & Jones, W. H. (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal commitment and relationship stability (pp. 259–280). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86 (5), 1015–1035.Google Scholar
Felmlee, D. H., & Sprecher, S. (2000). Close relationships and social psychology: Intersections and future paths. Social Psychology Quarterly, 63 (4), 365–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flap, H., & Volker, B. (2001). Goal specific social capital and job satisfaction: Effects of different types of networks on instrumental and social aspects of work. Social Networks, 23 (4), 297–320.Google Scholar
Gillespie, D., Krannich, R., & Leffler, A. (1985). The missing cell: Amiability, hostility and gender differentiation in rural community networks. Social Science Journal, 22, 17–30.Google Scholar
Gould, R. V. (1991). Multiple networks and mobilization in the Paris commune, 1871. American Sociological Review, 56 (6), 716–729.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. S. (1983). The strength of weak ties: A network theory revisited. Sociological Theory, 1, 201–233.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1995). Getting a job: A study of contacts and careers. Chicago, IL: Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Hartup, W. (1996). The company they keep: Friendships and their developmental significance. Child Development, 67 (1), 1–13.Google Scholar
Hartup, W. W., & Stevens, N. (1997). Friendship and adaptation in the life course. Psychological Bulletin, 121 (3), 355–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heaney, M. T. (2014). Multiplex networks and interest group influence reputation: An exponential random graph model. Social Networks, 36 (1), 66–81.Google Scholar
Heebels, B., Atzema, O., & Van Aalst, I. (2013). Social networks and cultural mediators: The multiplexity of personal ties in publishing. Industry and Innovation, 20 (8), 701–718.Google Scholar
Ibarra, H. (1995). Race, opportunity and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38 (3), 673–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kapferer, B. (1969). Norms and the manipulation of relationships in a work context. In Mitchell, J. C. (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in central African towns, (pp. 11–244). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
Kingery, J. N., & Erdley, C. A. (2007). Peer experiences as predictors of adjustment across the middle school transition. Education and Treatment of Children, 30 (2), 73–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kogovsek, T., Coenders, G., & Hlebec, V. (2013). Predictors and outcomes of social network composition: A compositional structural equation modeling approach. Social Networks, 35 (1), 1–10.Google Scholar
Krohn, M. D., Massey, J. L., & Zielinski, M. (1988). Role overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant gehavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (4), 346–356.Google Scholar
Latkin, C., Mandell, W., Vlahov, D., Knowlton, A., Oziemkowska, M., & Celentano, D. (1995). Personal networks characteristics as antecedent to needle-sharing and gallery shooting attendance. Social Networks, 17 (3–4), 219–228.Google Scholar
Litwalk, E. (1985). Helping the elderly: The complementary roles of informal networks and formal systems. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, M., & Vaarst Andersen, K. (2012). The performance effects of uniplex, multiplex and diverse social ties: A study of Bollywood film production. Paper present at The DRUID Society Conference 2012 on Innovation and Competitiveness - Dynamics of organizations, industries, systems and regions, CBS, Copenhagen, Denmark.Google Scholar
Luken, V. d. M., & Tranmer, M. (2010). Personal support networks of immigrants to Spain: A multilevel analysis. Social Networks, 32 (4), 253–262.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Mesch, G. S., & Talmud, I. (2006). Similarity and the quality of online and offline social relationships among adolescents in Israel. Journal of Research in Adolescence, 1, 29–44.Google Scholar
Park, N., Lee, S., & Kim, J. H. 2012. Individuals’ personal network characteristics and patterns of facebook use: A social network approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 28 (5), 1700–1707.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, B., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2010). Functional specificity in discussion networks: The influence of general and problem-specific networks on health outcomes. Social Networks, 32 (4), 345–357.Google Scholar
Perry, B. L., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2012). Social network dynamics in the face of biographical disruption: The case of “first timers” with mental illness. American Journal of Sociology, 118 (1), 134–175.Google Scholar
Perry, B. L., & Pescosolido, B. A. (2015). Social network activation: The role of health discussion partners in recovery from mental illness. Social Science & Medicine, 125, 116–128.Google Scholar
Pescosolido, B. A. (1992). Beyond rational choice: The social dynamics of how people seek help. American Journal of Sociology, 97 (4), 1096–1138.Google Scholar
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1997). Crime and deviance over the life course: The salience of adult bonds. American Sociological Review, 55 (5), 609–627.Google Scholar
Schneider, D. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Selman, R. L., & Schultz, L. H. (1990). Making a friend in youth: Developmental theory and pair therapy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Shipilov, A., Gulati, R., Kilduff, M., Li, S., & Tsai, W. (2014). Relational pluralism within and between organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 57 (2), 449–459.Google Scholar
Umberson, D., & Montez, J. K. (2010). Social relationships and health: A flashpoint for health policy. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 51 (Suppl), 54–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Uzzi, B. (1997). Social structure and competition in interfirm networks: The paradox of embeddedness. Administrative Science Quarterly, 42 (1), 37–69.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, L. M. (1977). The structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56 (2), 576–597.Google Scholar
Walen, H. R., & Lachman, M. E. (2000). Social support and strain from partner, family, and friends: Costs and benefits for men and women in adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 17 (1), 5–30.Google Scholar
Wall, K., & Gouveia, R. (2014). Changing meaning of family in personal relationships. Current Sociology, 62 (2), 352–373.Google Scholar
Weeks, M. S., & Asher, S. R. (2012). Loneliness in childhood: toward the next generation of assessment and research. In Benson, J. B. (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior (vol. 42, pp. 1–39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, B. (1992). Men in networks: Private communities, domestic friendships. In Nardi, P. M. (Ed.), Men’s Friendships. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Wellman, B., & Gulia, M. (1999). The network basis of social support: A network is more than the sum of its ties. In Wellman, B. (Ed.), Networks in the global village: Life in contemporary communities (pp. 83–118). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. Sociological Perspectives, 32 (3), 273–306.Google Scholar
Wheeldon, P. D. (1969). The operation of voluntary associations and personal networks in the political process of an inter-ethnic community. In Mitchell, J. D. (Ed.), Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationship in central african towns (pp. 128–180). Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar