Duocentric social network

Last updated

A duocentric social network is a type of social network composed of the combined network members of a dyad. The network consists of mutual, overlapping ties between members of the dyad as well as non-mutual ties. [1] While an explicit conceptualization of duocentric social networks appeared for the first time in an academic publication in 2008, [2] the history of the analysis dates back to at least the 1950s [3] and has spanned the fields of psychology, sociology, and health.

Contents

History

Original conception

Coromina et al. coined the term duocentered networks to describe the analytical technique of combining two individuals’ (or egos) social networks to examine both the shared network members (or alters) between a dyad and those that are connected to only one individual. [2] In this original conceptualization, Coromina et al. did not consider the relationships between the alters (i.e., the ties between alters) to be a necessary component of duocentric network analysis.

The impetus for this original conceptualization was a compromise between the two most commonly used social network analytical methods: egocentric [4] and sociocentric [5] network analyses. In an egocentric network analysis, a singular individual, his or her network members, and (occasionally), the ties between those alters are the focal point of the analysis. Egocentric analyses have been used in a wide range of fields, including physical health, [6] psychopathology, [7] family studies, [8] and intimate relationships. [9] On the other hand, the sociocentric network approach utilizes a bounded group as the unit of analyses, examining all ties between actors in the group. This has been utilized to study health in retirement communities [10] and entire cities (e.g., the Framingham Heart Study [11] ), as well as in the workplace [12] and classroom settings. [13] Sociocentric networks could be used to answer research questions focused on dyads, but the time, cost, and difficulty of collecting network data from all members in a bounded group is often prohibitive. Coromina et al. [2] also state that duocentered networks relieve issues of data collection in sociocentric networks. First, it reduces “respondent inaccuracy” in reporting network contacts, which will be more prevalent in less well socially connected individuals. Because the dyad is selected for a specific network research question, they are more likely to be central members of their networks and better positioned to accurately report on their network contacts. Second, the technique reduces “unit non-response," which is the failure of an eligible study participant to respond or provide enough information to deem the response statistically usable. [14] Because the focus of a duocentered network is only two individuals rather than a larger group, it will ostensibly be easier to gather usable information.[ original research? ]

Kennedy et al. (2015) expansion

Kennedy et al. [1] maintained this basic framework, but redefined the concept as duocentric networks, and suggested that information on the relatedness of ties in the network should be collected. Coromina et al. did not take this approach because of the respondent inaccuracy and unit non-response bias that similarly affect sociocentric analyses. [2] Respondent inaccuracy in the context of duocentric networks means that people will inaccurately report the connections between their network members. Unit non-response follows from this difficulty; if people are unable to report connections, certain analyses that rely on these connections may not be possible.[ original research? ]

Analysis

Structural Measures

There are several common structural metrics derived from duocentric social networks:

Compositional Measures

Compositional measures are the characteristics of the individuals who make up the network or other societal norms and structures that may influence the structure and function of a social network. [1] Compositional measures include social support, [17] intimate relationship approval from network members, [18] proportion of family or friends in the network, [19] demographic characteristics, and norms. [20]

Feedback Loops

Although primarily supported in egocentric network analyses, [9] [21] [22] evidence suggest that dyads can influence the composition and structure of the duocentric networks in which they are embedded. For example, Bryant, Conger & Meehan (2001) [23] found that a wife's marital satisfaction predicted lower discord between husbands and the wife's parents at a later time.

Applications

Application to intimate relationships

One of the first studies examining duocentric social networks was Elizabeth Bott's 1957 finding that the density of spouse's separate networks is positively associated with marital role segregation, a finding now known as the Bott Hypothesis. [24] While Bott did not examine the overlapping network of spouses, her work was among the first to collect network data separately from both members of a dyad, and use that data to predict a dyadic phenomenon.

Perhaps the most well-studied phenomenon utilizing a duocentric network approach in the context of intimate relationships is network overlap. Most of this research points to higher relationship satisfaction as the level of overlap increases. [19] [25] [26] [27] Network overlap increases as couples transition to cohabitation, and remarriages tend to have less overlap than first marriages. [28] Additionally, one finding suggests that more equal numbers of each partner's family contained in the overlapping network is associated with higher marital satisfaction for heterosexual couples. [29]

Other structural measures have received relatively less attention in the study of intimate relationships. Research shows a positive association between duocentric network size and marital satisfaction. [25] Additionally, marriages in which both spouses are in their first marriage have larger networks than marriages in which both spouse is remarried. [30] Other studies have highlighted non-results, including that social network density is not associated with relationship satisfaction [3] and that density is not associated with marital role segregation (a refutation of the Bott Hypothesis). [31]

The link between compositional duocentric network factors and intimate relationships is less well-studied. However, evidence from duocentric analyses suggest that discord with in-laws predicts lower satisfaction, commitment, and stability in marriages over time. [23] Additionally, support and approval from the social network tends to be associated with higher commitment and marital satisfaction. [32] [33]

Application to other fields

Duocentric social network analyses have been used less often outside the context of intimate relationships. One of the earliest examples examined the frequency with which two people mutually named one another in their respective network reports. [34] The study recruited one person who listed their network members, then those network members were contacted and asked to list their own network members. About 86% of the time, people named by the original interviewee also named that interviewee on their own list. Another study of parents of children with brain tumors found that overlap of non-kin was near 50%, while overlap for kin was slightly higher. [35] More peripheral overlapping ties (i.e., those to whom the couple is less close) was associated with lower rates of mental health disorders. Another study examined duocentric networks in sibling pairs aged 7–13. [36] Monozygotic twins had the most overlap in their peer networks (82%), followed by same-sex dizygotic twins (67%), same-sex virtual twins (e.g., unrelated peers matched on certain characteristics; 62%), friend-friend pairs (48%), opposite-sex dizygotic twins (42%), same-sex full siblings (39%), opposite sex virtual twins (37%), and opposite-sex full siblings (27%). Genetics, sex (same- or opposite-sex), age, and relationship intimacy affected rates of peer overlap. Another example used pairs of corporations engaged in a business alliance as the focal unit, and found that the more common partners (i.e., overlap) between the two firms, the less likely their alliance would dissolve. [37]

Variants of duocentric network analyses

Kennedy et al. (2015) outline the most rigorous duocentric network study as one in which both members of the dyad report the specific individuals contained in their social networks. [1] However, the time and cost of this form of data collection has led researchers to use less stringent techniques to gather information on a dyadic network.

Global Network Perceptions

Rather than asking respondents to list the specific people contained in their social network, researchers occasionally ask for global perceptions of network qualities from both members of a dyad. This methodology limits many structural analyses because the relationships between network members is unknown, unless the structural qualities are addressed at a global level (e.g., for global perceptions of overlap, see Kearns & Leonard (2004) [38] ). Therefore, these studies typically highlight how compositional network aspects affect the dyad. For example, in the study of intimate relationship research, this methodology has been used to show how global perceptions of approval from the network vary across relationship stage, [39] closeness to family predicts changes in marital happiness, [20] the degree to which liking one's partner's family predicts relationship dissolution, [39] the effect of network support on relationship satisfaction, [40] and the relationship between time spent with the network and relationship commitment. [41]

Single Ego Reporting

Another variant of the duocentric network approach is to interview only one member of a focal dyad, but require the individual to report on both their own and the other person's social network, or the other individual's relationship to their own network. In many of these studies, respondents report global network perceptions. For example, one study asked respondents to report on the propensity for a respondent's relationship partner to receive support from their own network (a global measure of support). [42] Support was positively associated with relationship satisfaction. Another study asked respondents to report their perception of approval from their relationship partner's family (another global measure), which was found to be negatively associated with relationship dissolution. [43]

However, some research utilizes specific alter reporting in a single ego methodology. Milardo (1982) asked respondents to report their romantic partner's relationship to each of their own, specific, network members. [44] This method allowed the researcher to understand how much of the ego's social network overlapped with his or her partner without collecting information from the partner. However, this approach risks the ego inaccurately reporting the relationship between their partner and the individual network members. [2] Another study asked homeless youth to list recent sexual partners, other non-sexual partner network members, and the relationships between these alters. [45] The risk of unprotected sex was higher to the degree that sexual partners knew other members of the youth's social network.

See also

Related Research Articles

Cohabitation is an arrangement where two people are not married but live together. They are often involved in a romantic or sexually intimate relationship on a long-term or permanent basis. Such arrangements have become increasingly common in Western countries since the late 20th century, being led by changing social views, especially regarding marriage, gender roles and religion.

The concept of interpersonal relationship involves social associations, connections, or affiliations between two or more people. Interpersonal relationships vary in their degree of intimacy or self-disclosure, but also in their duration, in their reciprocity and in their power distribution, to name only a few dimensions. The context can vary from family or kinship relations, friendship, marriage, relations with associates, work, clubs, neighborhoods, and places of worship. Relationships may be regulated by law, custom, or mutual agreement, and form the basis of social groups and of society as a whole. Interpersonal relationships are created by people's interactions with one another in social situations.

Romance (love) Type of love that focuses on feelings

Romance or romantic love is a feeling of love for, or a strong attraction towards another person, and the courtship behaviors undertaken by an individual to express those overall feelings and resultant emotions.

Infidelity Cheating, adultery, or having an affair

Infidelity is a violation of a couple's emotional and/or sexual exclusivity that commonly results in feelings of anger, sexual jealousy, and rivalry.

Open marriage is a form of non-monogamy in which the partners of a dyadic marriage agree that each may engage in extramarital sexual relationships, without this being regarded by them as infidelity, and consider or establish an open relationship despite the implied monogamy of marriage. There are variant forms of open marriage such as swinging and polyamory, each with the partners having varying levels of input on their spouse's activities.

Premarital sex is sexual activity which is practiced by people before they are married. In some period of human history, in some societies, premarital sex has been considered a moral issue which is taboo in many cultures and it is also considered a sin by a number of religions, but since the sexual revolution of the 1960s, it has become accepted by certain liberal movements, especially in Western countries. A 2014 Pew study on global morality found that premarital sex was considered particularly unacceptable in "Muslim Majority Countries", such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Jordan, Pakistan, and Egypt, each having over 90% disapproval, while people in Western European countries were the most accepting, with Spain, Germany, and France expressing less than 10% disapproval.

An open relationship, is an intimate relationship that is sexually non-monogamous. The term is distinct from polyamory, in that it generally indicates a relationship where there is a primary emotional and intimate relationship between two partners, who agree to at least the possibility of sexual intimacy with other people.

A long-distance relationship (LDR) or long-distance romantic relationship (LDRR) is an intimate relationship between partners who are geographically separated from one another. Partners in LDRs face geographic separation and lack of face-to-face contact. LDRs are particularly prevalent among college students, constituting 25% to 50% of all relationships. Even though scholars have reported a significant number of LDRs in undergraduate populations, long-distance relationships continue to be an understudied phenomenon.

An intimate relationship is an interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy. Although an intimate relationship is commonly a sexual relationship, it may also be a non-sexual relationship involving family, friends, or acquaintances.

Couples therapy attempts to improve romantic relationships and resolve interpersonal conflicts.

In psychology, the theory of attachment can be applied to adult relationships including friendships, emotional affairs, adult romantic relationships or platonic relationships and in some cases relationships with inanimate objects. Attachment theory, initially studied in the 1960s and 1970s primarily in the context of children and parents, was extended to adult relationships in the late 1980s.

A mixed-orientation marriage is a marriage between partners of differing sexual orientations. The broader term is mixed-orientation relationship and both terms are often shortened to MOM and MOR respectively.

Dyad (sociology) Group of two people

In sociology, a dyad is a group of two people, the smallest possible social group. As an adjective, "dyadic" describes their interaction.

William Ickes is a personality and social psychologist who is known primarily for his research on unstructured dyadic interaction. His first major line of research within this tradition concerns the phenomenon of empathic accuracy. This research is summarized in his 2003 book Everyday Mind Reading: Understanding What Other People Think and Feel. His second major line of research concerns the influence of personal traits and characteristics on people's initial interactions with each other. This research is summarized in his 2009 book Strangers in a Strange Lab: How Personality Shapes Our Initial Encounters with Others.

Self-expansion theory was proposed by Arthur Aron, which is always used to examine the relationship maintenance including family, friendship, and romantic. In this model, Aron believed that humans have an initial motivation to incorporate others’ resources into themselves to help establish a mutual identity, improve self-efficacy, and enhance the sense of self.

Social network Social structure made up of a set of social actors

A social network is a social structure made up of a set of social actors, sets of dyadic ties, and other social interactions between actors. The social network perspective provides a set of methods for analyzing the structure of whole social entities as well as a variety of theories explaining the patterns observed in these structures. The study of these structures uses social network analysis to identify local and global patterns, locate influential entities, and examine network dynamics.

Homogamy is marriage between individuals who are, in some culturally important way, similar to each other. It is a form of assortative mating. The union may be based on socioeconomic status, class, gender, caste, ethnicity, or religion, or age in the case of the so-called age homogamy.

Marriage and health are closely related. Married people experience lower morbidity and mortality across such diverse health threats as cancer, heart attacks, and surgery. There are gender differences in these effects which may be partially due to men's and women's relative status. Most research on marriage and health has focused on heterosexual couples, and more work is needed to clarify the health effects on same-sex marriage. Simply being married, as well as the quality of one's marriage, has been linked to diverse measures of health. Research has examined the social-cognitive, emotional, behavioral and biological processes involved in these links.

The Cascade Model of Relational Dissolution is a relational communications theory that proposes four critically negative behaviors that lead to the breakdown of marital and romantic relationships. This model is the work of psychological researcher John Gottman, a professor at the University of Washington and founder of The Gottman Institute and his research partner Robert W. Levenson. This theory focuses on the negative influence of verbal and nonverbal communication habits on the success and/or failure of marriages and other relationships. Gottman's model uses a metaphor that compares the four negative communication styles that lead to the breakdown of a relationship to the biblical Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, wherein each behavior, or horseman, compounds the problems of the previous, leading to the total breakdown of communication in a relationship.

Relationship science is an interdisciplinary field dedicated to the scientific study of interpersonal relationship processes. Due to its interdisciplinary nature, relationship science is made-up of researchers of various professional backgrounds within psychology and outside of psychology, but most researchers who identify with the field are psychologists by training. Additionally, the field's emphasis has historically been close and intimate relationships, which includes predominantly dating & married couples, parent-child relationships, and friendships & social networks, but some also study less salient social relationships such as colleagues and acquaintances.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kennedy, David P.; Jackson, Grace L.; Green, Harold D.; Bradbury, Thomas N.; Karney, Benjamin R. (2015). "The Analysis of Duocentric Social Networks: A Primer". Journal of Marriage and the Family. 77 (1): 295–311. doi:10.1111/jomf.12151. ISSN   0022-2445. PMC   4864858 . PMID   27182084.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Coromina, Lluís; Guia, Jaume; Coenders, Germà; Ferligoj, Anuška (2008-01-01). "Duocentered networks". Social Networks. 30 (1): 49–59. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2007.07.001. ISSN   0378-8733.
  3. 1 2 Rogler, Lloyd H.; Procidano, Mary E. (1986). "The Effect of Social Networks on Marital Roles: A Test of the Bott Hypothesis in an Intergenerational Context". Journal of Marriage and Family. 48 (4): 693–701. doi:10.2307/352562. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   352562.
  4. ↑ Djomba, Janet Klara; Zaletel-Kragelj, Lijana (2016-07-28). "A methodological approach to the analysis of egocentric social networks in public health research: a practical example". Slovenian Journal of Public Health. 55 (4): 256–263. doi:10.1515/sjph-2016-0035. ISSN   0351-0026. PMC   5030837 . PMID   27703548.
  5. ↑ Perkins, Jessica M.; Subramanian, S. V.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2015). "Social networks and health: a systematic review of sociocentric network studies in low- and middle-income countries". Social Science & Medicine (1982). 125: 60–78. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.08.019. ISSN   1873-5347. PMC   5690563 . PMID   25442969.
  6. ↑ O'Malley, A. James; Arbesman, Samuel; Steiger, Darby Miller; Fowler, James H.; Christakis, Nicholas A. (2012). "Egocentric social network structure, health, and pro-social behaviors in a national panel study of Americans". PLOS ONE. 7 (5): e36250. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...736250O. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0036250. ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3352911 . PMID   22615760.
  7. ↑ Meisel, Matthew K.; Clifton, Allan D.; Mackillop, James; Miller, Joshua D.; Campbell, W. Keith; Goodie, Adam S. (2013). "Egocentric social network analysis of pathological gambling". Addiction (Abingdon, England). 108 (3): 584–591. doi:10.1111/add.12014. ISSN   1360-0443. PMC   3578111 . PMID   23072641.
  8. ↑ Acock, Alan C.; Hurlbert, Jeanne S. (1990-05-01). "Social Network Analysis: A Structural Perspective for Family Studies". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 7 (2): 245–264. doi:10.1177/0265407590072006. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   145479392.
  9. 1 2 Albeck, Shulamith; PhD, Dania Kaydar (2002-03-01). "Divorced Mothers". Journal of Divorce & Remarriage. 36 (3–4): 111–138. doi:10.1300/J087v36n03_07. ISSN   1050-2556. S2CID   147038767.
  10. ↑ Schafer, Markus H. (2011). "Health and network centrality in a continuing care retirement community". The Journals of Gerontology. Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 66 (6): 795–803. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbr112 . ISSN   1758-5368. PMID   21979938.
  11. ↑ Mahmood, Syed S.; Levy, Daniel; Vasan, Ramachandran S.; Wang, Thomas J. (2014-03-15). "The Framingham Heart Study and the epidemiology of cardiovascular disease: a historical perspective". Lancet. 383 (9921): 999–1008. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)61752-3. ISSN   1474-547X. PMC   4159698 . PMID   24084292.
  12. ↑ Venkataramani, Vijaya; Labianca, Giuseppe; Grosser, Travis (2013-08-05). "Positive and Negative Workplace Relationships, Social Satisfaction, and Organizational Attachment". The Journal of Applied Psychology. 99 (6): 1028–1039. doi:10.1037/a0034090. PMID   23915428. S2CID   32720501.
  13. ↑ Farmer, Thomas W.; Farmer, Elizabeth M. Z. (1996). "Social Relationships of Students with Exceptionalities in Mainstream Classrooms: Social Networks and Homophily". Exceptional Children. 62 (5): 431–450. doi:10.1177/001440299606200504. ISSN   0014-4029. S2CID   143306556.
  14. ↑ "Unit Nonresponse - SAGE Research Methods". methods.sagepub.com. Retrieved 2019-11-19.
  15. ↑ Freeman, Linton C. (1978-01-01). "Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification". Social Networks. 1 (3): 215–239. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7. ISSN   0378-8733.
  16. ↑ Widmer, Eric D. (2016-06-29). "Who are my family members? Bridging and binding social capital in family configurations". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 23 (6): 979–998. doi:10.1177/0265407506070482. S2CID   145659715.
  17. ↑ Hall, Jeffrey A. (2010). "Parents' networks: Egocentric networks and unique and shared sources of social support".{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
  18. ↑ Bryant, Chalandra M.; Conger, Rand D. (1999). "Marital Success and Domains of Social Support in Long-Term Relationships: Does the Influence of Network Members Ever End?". Journal of Marriage and Family. 61 (2): 437–450. doi:10.2307/353760. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   353760.
  19. 1 2 Cotton, Sandra; Cunningham, John D.; Antill, John K. (1993-12-01). "Network structure, network support and the marital satisfaction of husbands and wives". Australian Journal of Psychology. 45 (3): 176–181. doi:10.1080/00049539308259136. ISSN   0004-9530.
  20. 1 2 Timmer, Susan G.; Veroff, Joseph (2000). "Family Ties and the Discontinuity of Divorce in Black and White Newlywed Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family. 62 (2): 349–361. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2000.00349.x. ISSN   1741-3737.
  21. ↑ Baxter, Leslie A.; Widenmann, Sally (1993). "Revealing and Not Revealing the Status of Romantic Relationships to Social Networks". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 10 (3): 321–337. doi:10.1177/0265407593103002. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   145082611.
  22. ↑ Flynn, Heather Kohler; Felmlee, Diane H.; Conger, Rand D. (2014-11-27). "The Social Context of Adolescent Friendships: Parents, Peers, and Romantic Partners". Youth & Society. 49 (5): 679–705. doi:10.1177/0044118X14559900. S2CID   146816449.
  23. 1 2 Bryant, Chalandra M.; Conger, Rand D.; Meehan, Jennifer M. (2001). "The Influence of In-Laws on Change in Marital Success". Journal of Marriage and Family. 63 (3): 614–626. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2001.00614.x. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   3654637.
  24. ↑ Bott, Elizabeth (1971). Family and Social Network (2nd ed.). New York: Free Press.
  25. 1 2 Hansen, Finy J.; Fallon, April E.; Novotny, Sherie L. (1991). "The relationship between social network structure and marital satisfaction in distressed and nondistressed couples: A pilot study". Family Therapy. 18 (2): 101–114.
  26. ↑ Kim, Hyun J.; Stiff, James B. (1991-09-01). "Social Networks and the Development of Close Relationships". Human Communication Research. 18 (1): 70–91. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2958.1991.tb00529.x. ISSN   0360-3989.
  27. ↑ Stein, Catherine H.; Bush, Ellen G.; Ross, Ronald R.; Ward, Marcia (1992). "Mine, Yours and Ours: A Configural Analysis of the Networks of Married Couples in Relation to Marital Satisfaction and Individual Well-Being". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 9 (3): 365–383. doi:10.1177/0265407592093003. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   144879334.
  28. ↑ Kalmijn, Matthijs (2003-07-01). "Shared friendship networks and the life course: an analysis of survey data on married and cohabiting couples". Social Networks. 25 (3): 231–249. doi:10.1016/S0378-8733(03)00010-8. ISSN   0378-8733.
  29. ↑ Julien, Danielle; Chartrand, Elise; Bégin, Jean (1999). "Social Networks, Structural Interdependence, and Conjugal Adjustment in Heterosexual, Gay, and Lesbian Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family. 61 (2): 516–530. doi:10.2307/353766. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   353766.
  30. ↑ Kurdek, Lawrence A. (1989). "Social Support and Psychological Distress in First-Married and Remarried Newlywed Husbands and Wives". Journal of Marriage and Family. 51 (4): 1047–1052. doi:10.2307/353215. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   353215.
  31. ↑ Udry, J. Richard; Hall, Mary (1965). "Marital Role Segregation and Social Networks in Middle-Class Middle-Aged Couples". Journal of Marriage and Family. 27 (3): 392–395. doi:10.2307/350285. ISSN   0022-2445. JSTOR   350285.
  32. ↑ Brooks, James E.; Ogolsky, Brian G. (2017-05-19). "Effects of Network Approval on Accounts of Commitment Trajectories in Intraracial and Interracial Relationships". Marriage & Family Review. 53 (4): 347–364. doi:10.1080/01494929.2016.1184210. ISSN   0149-4929. S2CID   147767370.
  33. ↑ Rodriguez, Yuliana; Helms, Heather M.; Supple, Andrew J.; Hengstebeck, Natalie D. (2016-09-01). "Mexican Immigrant Wives' Acculturative Stress and Spouses' Marital Quality: The Role of Wives' Marriage Work With Husbands and Close Friends". Journal of Family Issues. 37 (12): 1678–1702. doi:10.1177/0192513X14561519. ISSN   0192-513X. S2CID   145756132.
  34. ↑ Hammer, Muriel (1984-12-01). "Explorations into the meaning of social network interview data". Social Networks. 6 (4): 341–371. doi:10.1016/0378-8733(84)90008-X. ISSN   0378-8733.
  35. ↑ Veiel, H.O.F.; Crisand, M.; Stroszeck-Somschor, H.; Herrie, J. (1991). "Social Support Networks of Chronically Strained Couples: Similarity and Overlap". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 8 (2): 279–292. doi:10.1177/0265407591082007. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   145345616.
  36. ↑ McGuire, Shirley; Segal, Nancy L. (2013). "Peer Network Overlap in Twin, Sibling, and Friend Dyads". Child Development. 84 (2): 500–511. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01855.x. ISSN   1467-8624. PMID   22994629.
  37. ↑ Polidoro, Francisco; Ahuja, Gautam; Mitchell, Will (2011). "When the Social Structure Overshadows Competitive Incentives: The Effects of Network Embeddedness on Joint Venture Dissolution". Academy of Management Journal. 54 (1): 203–223. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215088. S2CID   7529504.
  38. ↑ Kearns, Jill N.; Leonard, Kenneth E. (2004). "Social networks, structural interdependence, and marital quality over the transition to marriage: a prospective analysis". Journal of Family Psychology. 18 (2): 383–395. doi:10.1037/0893-3200.18.2.383. ISSN   0893-3200. PMID   15222845.
  39. 1 2 Sprecher, Susan; Felmlee, Diane (2000). "Romantic partners'perceptions of social network attributes with the passage of time and relationship transitions". Personal Relationships. 7 (4): 325–340. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.2000.tb00020.x. ISSN   1475-6811.
  40. ↑ Julien, Danielle; Markman, Howard J. (1991). "Social Support and Social Networks as Determinants of Individual and Marital Outcomes". Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 8 (4): 549–568. doi:10.1177/026540759184006. ISSN   0265-4075. S2CID   144744331.
  41. ↑ Canary, Daniel J.; Stafford, Laura; Semic, Beth A. (2002). "A Panel Study of the Associations Between Maintenance Strategies and Relational Characteristics". Journal of Marriage and Family. 64 (2): 395–406. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2002.00395.x. ISSN   1741-3737.
  42. ↑ Dainton, Marianne (2015-12-01). "An Interdependence Approach to Relationship Maintenance in Interracial Marriage". Journal of Social Issues. 71 (4): 772–787. doi:10.1111/josi.12148.
  43. ↑ Felmlee, Diane H. (2001). "No Couple Is an Island: A Social Network Perspective on Dyadic Stability". Social Forces. 79 (4): 1259–1287. doi:10.1353/sof.2001.0039. ISSN   0037-7732. JSTOR   2675472. S2CID   143576063.
  44. ↑ Milardo, Robert M. (1982). "Friendship Networks in Developing Relationships: Converging and Diverging Social Environments". Social Psychology Quarterly. 45 (3): 162–172. doi:10.2307/3033649. ISSN   0190-2725. JSTOR   3033649.
  45. ↑ Kennedy, David P.; Tucker, Joan S.; Green, Harold D.; Golinelli, Daniela; Ewing, Brett (2012). "Unprotected sex of homeless youth: results from a multilevel dyadic analysis of individual, social network, and relationship factors". AIDS and Behavior. 16 (7): 2015–2032. doi:10.1007/s10461-012-0195-0. ISSN   1573-3254. PMC   3434273 . PMID   22610421.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.