Simplifying the Personal Network Name Generator

Abstract

Researchers studying personal networks often collect network data using name generators and name interpreters. We argue that when studying social support, multiple name generators ensure that researchers sample from a multidimensional definition of support. However, because administering multiple name generators is time consuming and strains respondent motivation, researchers often use single name generators. We compared network measures obtained from single generators to measures obtained from a six-item multiple-name generator. Although some single generators provided passable estimates of some measures, no single generator provided reliable estimates across a broad spectrum of network measures. We then evaluated two alternative methods of reducing respondent burden: (1) the MMG, a multiple generator using the two most robust name generators and (2) the MGRI, a six-item name generator with name interpreters administered for a random subset of alters. Both the MMG and the MGRI were more reliable than single generators when measuring size, density, and mean measures of network composition or activity, though some single name generators were more reliable for measures consisting of sums or counts.

Geographic Network Diversity: How Does it Affect Exploratory Innovation?

“…The use of multiple name generator questions is deemed appropriate in order to reduce the level of forgetting by the respondent, which is especially appropriate when making use of so-called recall methods (Marsden 2006). Previous research indicated that the use of multiple name generators consistently provide more reliable estimates compared to the use of a single name generator (Marin and Hampton 2007).…”

The Relationship Between Facebook Use and Well-Being Depends on Communication Type and Tie Strength

“…On the survey, participants selected up to six Facebook friends to whom they felt close. Respondents were instructed to select ties " … you discuss important matters with, really enjoy socializing with, or anyone else you feel especially close to" (Marin & Hampton, 2007). On average, participants selected 4.4 close friends.…”

How the participation style in local youth councils contributes to the civic engagement of young people

“…Being a member of a council provides common topics to talk about. Youth councils appear to be a core network (Hampton, Sessions & Ja Her, 2011;Lin, Cook & Burt, 2001;Marin & Hampton 2007) and members see each other as core confidants (Hampton, 2011). This is illustrated by the scenarios described, where members talk about their use of social media and their preference to keep their conversations accessible for members only.…”