2020
DOI: 10.1177/1525822x20958851
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Relationship Change, Network Change, and the Use of Single Name Generators in Longitudinal Research on Social Support

Abstract: As relationships change and people change the kinds of support they provide, name generators that collect information about ties that provide particular kinds of support at repeated points of time may not effectively capture ties that are active but whose roles have changed. This article shows that a significant minority of network members change the kinds of support they provide. They either discontinue a support previously provided or provide a new type of support. We examine the implications of this finding… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Second, UCNets is clearly an advance over single name generator research for the study of network change (e.g. Fischer & Offer, 2020;Marin & Dubash, 2020;Marin & Hampton, 2007), but data limitations precluded a detailed analysis of how changing network density (i.e., whether network members know one another) (Bot et al, 2016;Legh-Jones & Moore, 2012), social integration (Larsen et al, 2014;Lightner et al, 2018), or having exercise partners in one's personal network (Saito et al, 2021;Sørensen & Gill, 2008) may influence PA. The survey instrument did ask whom participants exercised with at the first survey cycle, but the lack of repeated longitudinal measures made this item unfeasible for panel analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Second, UCNets is clearly an advance over single name generator research for the study of network change (e.g. Fischer & Offer, 2020;Marin & Dubash, 2020;Marin & Hampton, 2007), but data limitations precluded a detailed analysis of how changing network density (i.e., whether network members know one another) (Bot et al, 2016;Legh-Jones & Moore, 2012), social integration (Larsen et al, 2014;Lightner et al, 2018), or having exercise partners in one's personal network (Saito et al, 2021;Sørensen & Gill, 2008) may influence PA. The survey instrument did ask whom participants exercised with at the first survey cycle, but the lack of repeated longitudinal measures made this item unfeasible for panel analysis.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, multiple name generators tend to be more reliable than single name generators, which may artefactually drop alters over time (Marin and Dubash 2021), and are able to capture alters engaged in political discussions with egos, compared with name generators specifically designed to elicit political networks (Klofstad et al 2009). Second, questions asking why network alters were not renominated reduced dependent variable measurement error.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We will employ a standard network generation process using a series of six name-generators and questions that aim to populate the network with individuals (20). The name generators for this study will focus on eliciting individuals in the participant's network who provide various forms of social support, social capital, and information using a combination of exchange, contact, and intimacy-based name generators (21,22). We will use a time recall of one year to increase respondents' ability to recall alters (23).…”
Section: Egocentric Social Network Measuresmentioning
confidence: 99%