Social:Duocentric social network

From HandWiki

A duocentric social network is a type of social network composed of the combined network members of a dyad. The network consists of mutual, overlapping ties between members of the dyad as well as non-mutual ties.[1] While an explicit conceptualization of duocentric social networks appeared for the first time in an academic publication in 2008,[2] the history of the analysis dates back to at least the 1950s[3] and has spanned the fields of psychology, sociology, and health.

History

Original conception

Coromina et al. coined the term duocentered networks to describe the analytical technique of combining two individuals’ (or egos) social networks to examine both the shared network members (or alters) between a dyad and those that are connected to only one individual.[2] In this original conceptualization, Coromina et al. did not consider the relationships between the alters (i.e., the ties between alters) to be a necessary component of duocentric network analysis.

The impetus for this original conceptualization was a compromise between the two most commonly used social network analytical methods: egocentric[4] and sociocentric[5] network analyses. In an egocentric network analysis, a singular individual, his or her network members, and (occasionally), the ties between those alters are the focal point of the analysis. Egocentric analyses have been used in a wide range of fields, including physical health,[6] psychopathology,[7] family studies,[8] and intimate relationships.[9] On the other hand, the sociocentric network approach utilizes a bounded group as the unit of analyses, examining all ties between actors in the group. This has been utilized to study health in retirement communities[10] and entire cities (e.g., the Framingham Heart Study[11]), as well as in the workplace[12] and classroom settings.[13] Sociocentric networks could be used to answer research questions focused on dyads, but the time, cost, and difficulty of collecting network data from all members in a bounded group is often prohibitive. Coromina et al.[2] also state that duocentered networks relieve issues of data collection in sociocentric networks. First, it reduces “respondent inaccuracy” in reporting network contacts, which will be more prevalent in less well socially connected individuals. Because the dyad is selected for a specific network research question, they are more likely to be central members of their networks and better positioned to accurately report on their network contacts. Second, the technique reduces “unit non-response," which is the failure of an eligible study participant to respond or provide enough information to deem the response statistically usable.[14] Because the focus of a duocentered network is only two individuals rather than a larger group, it will ostensibly be easier to gather usable information.[original research?]

Kennedy et al. (2015) expansion

Kennedy et al.[1] maintained this basic framework, but redefined the concept as duocentric networks, and suggested that information on the relatedness of ties in the network should be collected. Coromina et al. did not take this approach because of the respondent inaccuracy and unit non-response bias that similarly affect sociocentric analyses.[2] Respondent inaccuracy in the context of duocentric networks means that people will inaccurately report the connections between their network members. Unit non-response follows from this difficulty; if people are unable to report connections, certain analyses that rely on these connections may not be possible.[original research?]

Analysis

Structural Measures

There are several common structural metrics derived from duocentric social networks:

  • Degree centrality: The number of ties that an ego has with other network members. More central egos have a greater number of connections.[1]
  • Closeness centrality: An ego has higher closeness centrality as the number of “steps” it takes to get to other alters in the network decreases. If an alter is the friend of a friend of one's partner, this will decrease one's closeness centrality as compared to a friend of one's partner (i.e., one step closer to the ego).[15]
  • Betweenness centrality: If a network is visualized as many separate paths connecting network members to each other through varying number of links, an ego has higher betweenness centrality to the extent that they lie on more paths between alters in a network.[2] Higher betweenness centrality indicates that one plays a larger role as an intermediary between network members who may not be directly connected.
  • Density: The total number of ties in a network relative to the total number of possible ties in a network.[1]
  • Overlap: Unique to duocentric networks, overlap measures the number of shared ties between two egos.[1]
  • Diversity: Similar to density, diversity measures the size of the non-overlapping network members of both egos in the dyad.[2]
  • Components: A component is a portion of the social network that is disconnected from the rest of the full network. The members in a component are connected either directly or through a maximum of one mutual tie. Generally, a greater number of components signals a less well-connected network.[16]
  • Isolates: A measure of fragmentation in the network, isolates in a duocentric network are those that are connected to only one ego and to no other network members.[1]

Compositional Measures

Compositional measures are the characteristics of the individuals who make up the network or other societal norms and structures that may influence the structure and function of a social network.[1] Compositional measures include social support,[17] intimate relationship approval from network members,[18] proportion of family or friends in the network,[19] demographic characteristics, and norms.[20]

Feedback Loops

Although primarily supported in egocentric network analyses,[9][21][22] evidence suggest that dyads can influence the composition and structure of the duocentric networks in which they are embedded. For example, Bryant, Conger & Meehan (2001)[23] found that a wife's marital satisfaction predicted lower discord between husbands and the wife's parents at a later time.

Applications

Application to intimate relationships

One of the first studies examining duocentric social networks was Elizabeth Bott's 1957 finding that the density of spouse's separate networks is positively associated with marital role segregation, a finding now known as the Bott Hypothesis.[24] While Bott did not examine the overlapping network of spouses, her work was among the first to collect network data separately from both members of a dyad, and use that data to predict a dyadic phenomenon.

Perhaps the most well-studied phenomenon utilizing a duocentric network approach in the context of intimate relationships is network overlap. Most of this research points to higher relationship satisfaction as the level of overlap increases.[19][25][26][27] Network overlap increases as couples transition to cohabitation, and remarriages tend to have less overlap than first marriages.[28] Additionally, one finding suggests that more equal numbers of each partner's family contained in the overlapping network is associated with higher marital satisfaction for heterosexual couples.[29]

Other structural measures have received relatively less attention in the study of intimate relationships. Research shows a positive association between duocentric network size and marital satisfaction.[25] Additionally, marriages in which both spouses are in their first marriage have larger networks than marriages in which both spouse is remarried.[30] Other studies have highlighted non-results, including that social network density is not associated with relationship satisfaction[3] and that density is not associated with marital role segregation (a refutation of the Bott Hypothesis).[31]

The link between compositional duocentric network factors and intimate relationships is less well-studied. However, evidence from duocentric analyses suggest that discord with in-laws predicts lower satisfaction, commitment, and stability in marriages over time.[23] Additionally, support and approval from the social network tends to be associated with higher commitment and marital satisfaction.[32][33]

Application to other fields

Duocentric social network analyses have been used less often outside the context of intimate relationships. One of the earliest examples examined the frequency with which two people mutually named one another in their respective network reports.[34] The study recruited one person who listed their network members, then those network members were contacted and asked to list their own network members. About 86% of the time, people named by the original interviewee also named that interviewee on their own list. Another study of parents of children with brain tumors found that overlap of non-kin was near 50%, while overlap for kin was slightly higher.[35] More peripheral overlapping ties (i.e., those to whom the couple is less close) was associated with lower rates of mental health disorders. Another study examined duocentric networks in sibling pairs aged 7–13.[36] Monozygotic twins had the most overlap in their peer networks (82%), followed by same-sex dizygotic twins (67%), same-sex virtual twins (e.g., unrelated peers matched on certain characteristics; 62%), friend-friend pairs (48%), opposite-sex dizygotic twins (42%), same-sex full siblings (39%), opposite sex virtual twins (37%), and opposite-sex full siblings (27%). Genetics, sex (same- or opposite-sex), age, and relationship intimacy affected rates of peer overlap. Another example used pairs of corporations engaged in a business alliance as the focal unit, and found that the more common partners (i.e., overlap) between the two firms, the less likely their alliance would dissolve.[37]

Variants of duocentric network analyses

Kennedy et al. (2015) outline the most rigorous duocentric network study as one in which both members of the dyad report the specific individuals contained in their social networks.[1] However, the time and cost of this form of data collection has led researchers to use less stringent techniques to gather information on a dyadic network.

Global Network Perceptions

Rather than asking respondents to list the specific people contained in their social network, researchers occasionally ask for global perceptions of network qualities from both members of a dyad. This methodology limits many structural analyses because the relationships between network members is unknown, unless the structural qualities are addressed at a global level (e.g., for global perceptions of overlap, see Kearns & Leonard (2004)[38]). Therefore, these studies typically highlight how compositional network aspects affect the dyad. For example, in the study of intimate relationship research, this methodology has been used to show how global perceptions of approval from the network vary across relationship stage,[39] closeness to family predicts changes in marital happiness,[20] the degree to which liking one's partner's family predicts relationship dissolution,[39] the effect of network support on relationship satisfaction,[40] and the relationship between time spent with the network and relationship commitment.[41]

Single Ego Reporting

Another variant of the duocentric network approach is to interview only one member of a focal dyad, but require the individual to report on both their own and the other person's social network, or the other individual's relationship to their own network. In many of these studies, respondents report global network perceptions. For example, one study asked respondents to report on the propensity for a respondent's relationship partner to receive support from their own network (a global measure of support).[42] Support was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Another study asked respondents to report their perception of approval from their relationship partner's family (another global measure), which was found to be negatively associated with relationship dissolution.[43]

However, some research utilizes specific alter reporting in a single ego methodology. Milardo (1982) asked respondents to report their romantic partner's relationship to each of their own, specific, network members.[44] This method allowed the researcher to understand how much of the ego's social network overlapped with his or her partner without collecting information from the partner. However, this approach risks the ego inaccurately reporting the relationship between their partner and the individual network members.[2] Another study asked homeless youth to list recent sexual partners, other non-sexual partner network members, and the relationships between these alters.[45] The risk of unprotected sex was higher to the degree that sexual partners knew other members of the youth's social network.

See also

References

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 Kennedy, David P.; Jackson, Grace L.; Green, Harold D.; Bradbury, Thomas N.; Karney, Benjamin R. (2015). "The Analysis of Duocentric Social Networks: A Primer". Journal of Marriage and the Family 77 (1): 295–311. doi:10.1111/jomf.12151. ISSN 0022-2445. PMID 27182084. 
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 Coromina, Lluís; Guia, Jaume; Coenders, Germà; Ferligoj, Anuška (2008-01-01). "Duocentered networks". Social Networks 30 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.07.001. ISSN 0378-8733. 
  3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 Rogler, Lloyd H.; Procidano, Mary E. (1986). "The Effect of Social Networks on Marital Roles: A Test of the Bott Hypothesis in an Intergenerational Context". Journal of Marriage and Family 48 (4): 693–701. doi:10.2307/352562. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  4. ↑ Djomba, Janet Klara; Zaletel-Kragelj, Lijana (2016-07-28). "A methodological approach to the analysis of egocentric social networks in public health research: a practical example". Slovenian Journal of Public Health 55 (4): 256–263. doi:10.1515/sjph-2016-0035. ISSN 0351-0026. PMID 27703548. 
  5. ↑ Perkins, Jessica M.; Subramanian, S. V.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2015). "Social networks and health: a systematic review of sociocentric network studies in low- and middle-income countries". Social Science & Medicine 125: 60–78. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.019. ISSN 1873-5347. PMID 25442969. 
  6. ↑ O'Malley, A. James; Arbesman, Samuel; Steiger, Darby Miller; Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2012). "Egocentric social network structure, health, and pro-social behaviors in a national panel study of Americans". PLOS ONE 7 (5): e36250. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036250. ISSN 1932-6203. PMID 22615760. Bibcode: 2012PLoSO...736250O. 
  7. ↑ Meisel, Matthew K.; Clifton, Allan D.; Mackillop, James; Miller, Joshua D.; Campbell, W. Keith; Goodie, Adam S. (2013). "Egocentric social network analysis of pathological gambling". Addiction 108 (3): 584–591. doi:10.1111/add.12014. ISSN 1360-0443. PMID 23072641. 
  8. ↑ Acock, Alan C.; Hurlbert, Jeanne S. (1990-05-01). "Social Network Analysis: A Structural Perspective for Family Studies" (in en). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 7 (2): 245–264. doi:10.1177/0265407590072006. ISSN 0265-4075. 
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 Albeck, Shulamith; PhD, Dania Kaydar (2002-03-01). "Divorced Mothers". Journal of Divorce & Remarriage 36 (3–4): 111–138. doi:10.1300/J087v36n03_07. ISSN 1050-2556. 
  10. ↑ Schafer, Markus H. (2011). "Health and network centrality in a continuing care retirement community". The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 66 (6): 795–803. doi:10.1093/geronb/gbr112. ISSN 1758-5368. PMID 21979938. 
  11. ↑ Mahmood, Syed S.; Levy, Daniel; Vasan, Ramachandran S.; Wang, Thomas J. (2014-03-15). "The Framingham Heart Study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: a historical perspective". Lancet 383 (9921): 999–1008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61752-3. ISSN 1474-547X. PMID 24084292. 
  12. ↑ Venkataramani, Vijaya; Labianca, Giuseppe; Grosser, Travis (2013-08-05). "Positive and Negative Workplace Relationships, Social Satisfaction, and Organizational Attachment". The Journal of Applied Psychology 99 (6): 1028–1039. doi:10.1037/a0034090. PMID 23915428. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255691932. 
  13. ↑ Farmer, Thomas W.; Farmer, Elizabeth M. Z. (1996). "Social Relationships of Students with Exceptionalities in Mainstream Classrooms: Social Networks and Homophily" (in en-US). Exceptional Children 62 (5): 431–450. doi:10.1177/001440299606200504. ISSN 0014-4029. 
  14. ↑ Lavrakas, Paul (2008) (in en). Unit Nonresponse - SAGE Research Methods. doi:10.4135/9781412963947. ISBN 9781412918084. https://methods.sagepub.com/reference/encyclopedia-of-survey-research-methods/n608.xml. Retrieved 2019-11-19. 
  15. ↑ Freeman, Linton C. (1978-01-01). "Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification". Social Networks 1 (3): 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7. ISSN 0378-8733. 
  16. ↑ Widmer, Eric D. (2016-06-29). "Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital in family configurations" (in en). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 23 (6): 979–998. doi:10.1177/0265407506070482. 
  17. ↑ Hall, Jeffrey A. (2010) (in en). Parents' networks: Egocentric networks and unique and shared sources of social support. https://kuscholarworks.ku.edu/handle/1808/7189. 
  18. ↑ Bryant, Chalandra M.; Conger, Rand D. (1999). "Marital Success and Domains of Social Support in Long-Term Relationships: Does the Influence of Network Members Ever End?". Journal of Marriage and Family 61 (2): 437–450. doi:10.2307/353760. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  19. ↑ 19.0 19.1 Cotton, Sandra; Cunningham, John D.; Antill, John K. (1993-12-01). "Network structure, network support and the marital satisfaction of husbands and wives". Australian Journal of Psychology 45 (3): 176–181. doi:10.1080/00049539308259136. ISSN 0004-9530. 
  20. ↑ 20.0 20.1 Timmer, Susan G.; Veroff, Joseph (2000). "Family Ties and the Discontinuity of Divorce in Black and White Newlywed Couples" (in en). Journal of Marriage and Family 62 (2): 349–361. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00349.x. ISSN 1741-3737. 
  21. ↑ Baxter, Leslie A.; Widenmann, Sally (1993). "Revealing and Not Revealing the Status of Romantic Relationships to Social Networks" (in en-US). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 10 (3): 321–337. doi:10.1177/0265407593103002. ISSN 0265-4075. 
  22. ↑ Flynn, Heather Kohler; Felmlee, Diane H.; Conger, Rand D. (2014-11-27). "The Social Context of Adolescent Friendships: Parents, Peers, and Romantic Partners" (in en). Youth & Society 49 (5): 679–705. doi:10.1177/0044118X14559900. 
  23. ↑ 23.0 23.1 Bryant, Chalandra M.; Conger, Rand D.; Meehan, Jennifer M. (2001). "The Influence of In-Laws on Change in Marital Success". Journal of Marriage and Family 63 (3): 614–626. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00614.x. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  24. ↑ Bott, Elizabeth (1971). Family and Social Network (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press. 
  25. ↑ 25.0 25.1 Hansen, Finy J.; Fallon, April E.; Novotny, Sherie L. (1991). "The relationship between social network structure and marital satisfaction in distressed and nondistressed couples: A pilot study.". Family Therapy 18 (2): 101–114. 
  26. ↑ Kim, Hyun J.; Stiff, James B. (1991-09-01). "Social Networks and the Development of Close Relationships" (in en). Human Communication Research 18 (1): 70–91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00529.x. ISSN 0360-3989. https://academic.oup.com/hcr/article/18/1/70/4575811. 
  27. ↑ Stein, Catherine H.; Bush, Ellen G.; Ross, Ronald R.; Ward, Marcia (1992). "Mine, Yours and Ours: A Configural Analysis of the Networks of Married Couples in Relation to Marital Satisfaction and Individual Well-Being" (in en-US). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 9 (3): 365–383. doi:10.1177/0265407592093003. ISSN 0265-4075. 
  28. ↑ Kalmijn, Matthijs (2003-07-01). "Shared friendship networks and the life course: an analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples". Social Networks 25 (3): 231–249. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00010-8. ISSN 0378-8733. 
  29. ↑ Julien, Danielle; Chartrand, Elise; Bégin, Jean (1999). "Social Networks, Structural Interdependence, and Conjugal Adjustment in Heterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family 61 (2): 516–530. doi:10.2307/353766. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  30. ↑ Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1989). "Social Support and Psychological Distress in First-Married and Remarried Newlywed Husbands and Wives". Journal of Marriage and Family 51 (4): 1047–1052. doi:10.2307/353215. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  31. ↑ Udry, J. Richard; Hall, Mary (1965). "Marital Role Segregation and Social Networks in Middle-Class Middle-Aged Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family 27 (3): 392–395. doi:10.2307/350285. ISSN 0022-2445. 
  32. ↑ Brooks, James E.; Ogolsky, Brian G. (2017-05-19). "Effects of Network Approval on Accounts of Commitment Trajectories in Intraracial and Interracial Relationships". Marriage & Family Review 53 (4): 347–364. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1184210. ISSN 0149-4929. 
  33. ↑ Rodriguez, Yuliana; Helms, Heather M.; Supple, Andrew J.; Hengstebeck, Natalie D. (2016-09-01). "Mexican Immigrant Wives' Acculturative Stress and Spouses' Marital Quality: The Role of Wives' Marriage Work With Husbands and Close Friends" (in en). Journal of Family Issues 37 (12): 1678–1702. doi:10.1177/0192513X14561519. ISSN 0192-513X. 
  34. ↑ Hammer, Muriel (1984-12-01). "Explorations into the meaning of social network interview data". Social Networks 6 (4): 341–371. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(84)90008-X. ISSN 0378-8733. 
  35. ↑ Veiel, H.O.F.; Crisand, M.; Stroszeck-Somschor, H.; Herrie, J. (1991). "Social Support Networks of Chronically Strained Couples: Similarity and Overlap" (in en-US). Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8 (2): 279–292. doi:10.1177/0265407591082007. ISSN 0265-4075. 
  36. ↑ McGuire, Shirley; Segal, Nancy L. (2013). "Peer Network Overlap in Twin, Sibling, and Friend Dyads" (in en). Child Development 84 (2): 500–511. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01855.x. ISSN 1467-8624. PMID 22994629. 
  37. ↑ Polidoro, Francisco; Ahuja, Gautam; Mitchell, Will (2011). "When the Social Structure Overshadows Competitive Incentives: The Effects of Network Embeddedness on Joint Venture Dissolution". Academy of Management Journal 54 (1): 203–223. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215088. 
  38. ↑ Kearns, Jill N.; Leonard, Kenneth E. (2004). "Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: a prospective analysis". Journal of Family Psychology 18 (2): 383–395. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.383. ISSN 0893-3200. PMID 15222845. 
  39. ↑ 39.0 39.1 Sprecher, Susan; Felmlee, Diane (2000). "Romantic partners'perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions" (in en). Personal Relationships 7 (4): 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00020.x. ISSN 1475-6811. 
  40. ↑ Julien, Danielle; Markman, Howard J. (1991). "Social Support and Social Networks as Determinants of Individual and Marital Outcomes". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 8 (4): 549–568. doi:10.1177/026540759184006. ISSN 0265-4075. 
  41. ↑ Canary, Daniel J.; Stafford, Laura; Semic, Beth A. (2002). "A Panel Study of the Associations Between Maintenance Strategies and Relational Characteristics" (in en). Journal of Marriage and Family 64 (2): 395–406. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x. ISSN 1741-3737. 
  42. ↑ Dainton, Marianne (2015-12-01). "An Interdependence Approach to Relationship Maintenance in Interracial Marriage". Journal of Social Issues 71 (4): 772–787. doi:10.1111/josi.12148. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286767372. 
  43. ↑ Felmlee, Diane H. (2001). "No Couple Is an Island: A Social Network Perspective on Dyadic Stability". Social Forces 79 (4): 1259–1287. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0039. ISSN 0037-7732. 
  44. ↑ Milardo, Robert M. (1982). "Friendship Networks in Developing Relationships: Converging and Diverging Social Environments". Social Psychology Quarterly 45 (3): 162–172. doi:10.2307/3033649. ISSN 0190-2725. 
  45. ↑ Kennedy, David P.; Tucker, Joan S.; Green, Harold D.; Golinelli, Daniela; Ewing, Brett (2012). "Unprotected sex of homeless youth: results from a multilevel dyadic analysis of individual, social network, and relationship factors". AIDS and Behavior 16 (7): 2015–2032. doi:10.1007/s10461-012-0195-0. ISSN 1573-3254. PMID 22610421. 



Retrieved from "https://handwiki.org/wiki/index.php?title=Social:Duocentric_social_network&oldid=2949622"