When networks speak volumes: Variation in the size of broader acquaintanceship networks

Lubbers, Miranda J.; Molina, José Luis; García, Hugo Valenzuela

doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2018.08.004

Cited by 29 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We observe that early rather than late adopters of Facebook (< 2010) and those who spend more time on Facebook have larger numbers of Facebook, consistent with our intuitions. Additionally, those adolescents who are younger have more contacts on Facebook, consistent with prior findings that age relates to the extended network size (Lubbers et al 2019).…”

Section: Confounding Factorssupporting

confidence: 87%

“…To maintain our sample size of 5,588 of non-missing cases in wave 2, we include categories for respondents that did not participate in wave 2. Finally, we control for respondent's age in monthsboth when the Facebook and the scale-up data were collectedbecause recent work shows network sizes differ by age (Lubbers et al 2019). (Mayer and Puller 2008), that primarily use online networks to strengthen and maintain their offline relationships Lampe 2007, 2011) and befriend others on Facebook when they share dorms, residencies, and academic majors (Wimmer and Lewis 2010).…”

Section: Confounding Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We first describe the obtained extended network sizes, then analytically test our hypotheses, and finally consider differences between the two metrics. scale-up method are in the range of 472-610 (Zheng et al 2006;McCormick et al 2010;DiPrete et al 2011;Lubbers et al 2019). Perhaps this is because our sample exclusively includes young adults (i.e., 18-19 year olds) that might be more socially active across a wider array of foci compared to members of more general target populations (e.g., adults).…”

Section: How Large Are Extended Social Network?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, more acquaintanceship ties facilitate access to information embedded in social networks (Granovetter 1973(Granovetter , 1983, and larger networks (occasionally measured via distal proxies) are associated with better health and well-being, and more social support (Holt-Lunstad, Smith, and Layton 2010). Yet, recent work started to explain individual variation in the extended network size (DiPrete et al 2011;Lubbers, Molina, and Valenzuele-García 2019).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Yet, prior work hardly systematically considers individual variation in the extended network size. Here, we contribute in particular to sociological work (e.g., Zheng et al 2006;DiPrete et al 2011;Lubbers et al 2019) that found differences in the extended social network size by gender, race, income, education, and social foci. In this paper, we test existing sociological explanations for the core network size and examine to what extent they apply to extended networks.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Beyond the Core: Who Has Larger Social Networks?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The sociological literature on social networks overwhelmingly considers the number of core social contacts. Social networks, however, reach far beyond this small number of social ties. We know little about individual variation in the size of such extended social networks. In this study, we move beyond core networks and explain individual variation in the extended social network size among youth. We use survey data of Dutch adolescents (N = 5,921) and use two state-of-the-art measurements to compute extended network sizes: network scale-up methods through Bayesian modeling and the observed number of contacts on Facebook. Among both measurements, we find that extended networks are larger among ethnic majority members, girls, and those who often engage in social foci. This highlights a crucial role for preferences and opportunity in the genesis of extended networks. Additionally, we find that differences between both network sizes (scale-up and Facebook) are smaller for girls and higher educated. We discuss the implications of these findings and suggest directions for future research.

show abstract

Section: Confounding Factorssupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Confounding Factorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: How Large Are Extended Social Network?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Beyond the Core: Who Has Larger Social Networks?

2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Gender‐specificity of resilience in major depressive disorder

Perlis

Ognyanova

Quintana

et al. 2021

Depression and Anxiety

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction The major stressors associated with the COVID‐19 pandemic provide an opportunity to understand the extent to which protective factors against depression may exhibit gender‐specificity. Method This study examined responses from multiple waves of a 50 states non‐probability internet survey conducted between May 2020 and January 2021. Participants completed the PHQ‐9 as a measure of depression, as well as items characterizing social supports. We used logistic regression models with population reweighting to examine association between absence of even mild depressive symptoms and sociodemographic features and social supports, with interaction terms and stratification used to investigate sex‐specificity. Results Among 73,917 survey respondents, 31,199 (42.2%) reported absence of mild or greater depression—11,011/23,682 males (46.5%) and 20,188/50,235 (40.2%) females. In a regression model, features associated with greater likelihood of depression‐resistance included at least weekly attendance of religious services (odds ratio [OR]: 1.10, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.04–1.16) and greater trust in others (OR: 1.04 for a 2‐unit increase, 95% CI: 1.02–1.06), along with level of social support measured as number of social ties available who could provide care (OR: 1.05, 95% CI: 1.02–1.07), talk to them (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 1.07–1.12), and help with employment (OR: 1.06, 95% CI: 1.04–1.08). The first two features showed significant interaction with gender (p < .0001), with markedly greater protective effects among women. Conclusion Aspects of social support are associated with diminished risk of major depressive symptoms, with greater effects of religious service attendance and trust in others observed among women than men.

show abstract