Who is dropped and why? Methodological and substantive accounts for network loss

Abstract

High rates of egocentric network turnover are frequently observed but not well explained. About 1,000 respondents to the UCNets survey named an average of 10 names in each of two waves a year apart. Consistent with prior studies, respondents in wave 2 failed to relist about half of the names they provided in wave 1. Asked why, respondents explained that they had forgotten the alter for about 40 percent of the missing names. Other common answers, such as no "occasion... to be in touch," also suggest that the true rate of alters being dropped is probably under 20 percent. Multilevel logit models identified the predictors of alters being dropped (neither relisted nor forgotten) versus retained. Immediate kin were likeliest to be retained and roommates, coworkers, and acquaintances to be dropped. Alters who provided companionship, confiding, advice, and emergency help were especially likely to be retained, as were those to whom respondents felt close. Little about the respondents themselves affected drop rates: having moved recently, having a close friend die, or having had an important relationship break up. Results are consistent with the argument that a tie's degree of constraint (notably being close family) and its balance of rewards determine the likelihood of it being dropped or demoted. Who is Dropped and Why? Methodological and Substantive Accounts for Network Loss Panel studies of egocentric networks commonly report a paradox: Respondents report much turnover among their alters-typically, about half of those named are not renamed-and yet respondents' repopulated networks display notable constancy in traits such as size, composition, supportiveness, and structure (see review below). Our purpose here is to expand our understanding of this phenomena by focusing on the first part of this process: whom respondents drop. We use two waves of UCNets, a survey that administered many name-eliciting questions to about 1,000 adult respondents. Methodologically, we found that (a) many apparently dropped alters were not really dropped, but were simply forgotten; (b) many alters whom respondents failed to re-list nonetheless remained "dormant" and available to the respondents; and (c) respondents positively dropped or demoted alters for several distinct reasons. Substantively, we found that (a) alters who were really dropped-neither re-listed nor simply forgotten-tended to be: extended kin, coworkers, or acquaintances; alters who had not been named as providing key support; and alters who were considered "difficult" (unless they were immediate kin). (b) Respondents who dropped many of their alters were particularly likely to have moved outside the region between waves. These findings suggest, methodologically, that the "true" rate of dropped alters in an adult population is nearer to 20 percent than the conventional 50 percent (depending on how the analyst classifies dropped alters who seemed to have been moved toward the periphery of ego's network). Theoretically, the findings suggest that the likelihood of being dropped ...

Social Networks in Later Life: Similarities and Differences between Sexual-Minority and Heterosexual Older Adults

“…Future research should fully explore variation across sexual orientation and associated sociodemographic characteristics when larger data sets become available. Moreover, although core discussion networks represent the primary sources of support for many people (Cornwell et al 2008; Marsden 1987), they do not usually encompass more peripheral social ties such as neighbors and religious community members that may provide additional instrumental or psychosocial resources for older adults (Erosheva et al 2016; Fischer and Offer 2020). Relatedly, the network module in NSHAP allowed respondents to nominate only up to five people with whom they discuss important things, and thus information about additional confidants, if they exist, is excluded from our analysis.…”

Let it go or let it grow? – Personal network development and the mobilization of intra-organizational social capital

“…When it comes to changes in composition, however, extended personal networks are characterized by far less stability than the core discussion network (Degenne and Lebeaux, 2005;Fischer and Offer, 2020;Morgan et al, 1996;Small, 2017), so that we must assume that some ties are always added or dropped. As such, we cannot use the authors' original distinction between "the presence or absence of replacement" (Small et al, 2015, p. 97).…”

“…As contact becomes more frequent, intense, and/or effective, the resulting ease of interaction between actors reduces transaction costs and friction losses (Burt, 2005;Leana and Van Buren, 1999;Pena-López and Sánchez-Santos, 2017). This in turn leads to ongoing cooperation and mutual obligations, which further reinforce tie strength (Fang et al, 2011;Lee, 2009) so that strong ties have also been shown to last longer (Degenne and Lebeaux, 2005;Fischer and Offer, 2020).…”

“…All prompts remained largely unchanged over the three panel waves, except for minor adjustments to address changes in the newcomers' socialization trajectory (such as adding a name generator to inquire about alters met during foreign assignments). Respondents were not confronted with their alter lists from prior waves, so that for each point of measurement, the network was recalled based on "mental alter sampling" (Fischer and Offer, 2020). Meanwhile, the name generators did include a specific prompt at T2 and T3, asking: "Are there any employees you've met during earlier assignments with whom you are still in contact now?…”

Networked lives

“…The reason for this is that networks are structures that evolve through mechanisms such as transitivity and homophily, which tends to make individuals relate to ties that are homogeneous in resources: ties with people of a similar gender, class background, education, and/or identity, who occupy similar positions in a given society (McPherson et al., 2001). When links among human lives emerge through homophily, fostered by geographical and social proximity (e.g., Fischer & Offer, 2019), resources therefore circulate among individuals under the same cultural and socio‐economic conditions, which exacerbate inequalities through a plurality of mechanisms of social reproduction (see Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954 on the ‘like‐me hypothesis’; Lin, 2001). 4 It is by means of these fundamental processes that networks incorporate the macro‐system of economic, cultural and social stratification of a given society, thus embedding the inequalities of the historical time and places we inhabit (Carr, 2018; Molina, García‐Macías, Lubbers, & Valenzuela‐Garcia, 2020).…”