Properties of Social Networks
Results
Properties of social networks
Mean network size was 80.67 (SD = 39.84,
Mdn = 75), with a range of 10–279
(Figure 1). The shape of the distribution is similar to that found in other studies of social networks (Bernard et al., 1990; Hill & Dunbar,
2003). The size of the kin and friend networks is given in Table 1.
Multilevel models
The results of the two models are presented
Table 2. The intraclass correlations (ICCx) of the models were 0.18 for Model 1 and
0.24 for Model 2. An ICC < 0.50 indicates that there was more variation in time to last contact at the level of the network member
Network size
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Number of cases
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 1. Distribution of personal network sizes. than at the level of the participant. However, the values of ICC demonstrate the need for multilevel analysis as there is clearly variation between participants on time to last contact, and thus simply analyzing the data without taking into account that network members are clustered within participants would result in an increased Type 1 error rate (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007).
Face contact (Model 1)
Level 1 effects. Participants had a shorter time to last contact to network members at high levels of emotional closeness and to network members living closer by. Participants had a shorter time to last contact for friends as compared to kin. Participants did not have a shorter time to last contact to female, as compared to male, network members.
Level 2 effects. As predicted (H1a), kin network size had a positive effect on time to last contact. Thus, participants with larger kin networks had a longer time to last contact with all network members (including both friends and kin), as compared to participants with smaller kin networks. However, contrary to H1b, there was no significant effect of the friend network size on time to last contact. H2 was supported:
The mean
Properties of social networks
Mean network size was 80.67 (SD = 39.84,
Mdn = 75), with a range of 10–279
(Figure 1). The shape of the distribution is similar to that found in other studies of social networks (Bernard et al., 1990; Hill & Dunbar,
2003). The size of the kin and friend networks is given in Table 1.
Multilevel models
The results of the two models are presented
Table 2. The intraclass correlations (ICCx) of the models were 0.18 for Model 1 and
0.24 for Model 2. An ICC < 0.50 indicates that there was more variation in time to last contact at the level of the network member
Network size
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300
Number of cases
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 1. Distribution of personal network sizes. than at the level of the participant. However, the values of ICC demonstrate the need for multilevel analysis as there is clearly variation between participants on time to last contact, and thus simply analyzing the data without taking into account that network members are clustered within participants would result in an increased Type 1 error rate (Tabachnick &
Fidell, 2007).
Face contact (Model 1)
Level 1 effects. Participants had a shorter time to last contact to network members at high levels of emotional closeness and to network members living closer by. Participants had a shorter time to last contact for friends as compared to kin. Participants did not have a shorter time to last contact to female, as compared to male, network members.
Level 2 effects. As predicted (H1a), kin network size had a positive effect on time to last contact. Thus, participants with larger kin networks had a longer time to last contact with all network members (including both friends and kin), as compared to participants with smaller kin networks. However, contrary to H1b, there was no significant effect of the friend network size on time to last contact. H2 was supported:
The mean