Egocentric contact networks in comparison: Taiwan and Hungary

Abstract

This study compares the size and structure of egocentric networks in Taiwan and Hungary using a diary approach. Both countries have transformed from authoritarian regimes to democratic states, yet they differ in social, economic, and cultural institutions that may be common to the respective larger region where each is located. To sample the structure of each egocentric network, we extracted information from largely identical contact diaries collected in both countries, 51 from Taiwan and 138 from Hungary. After comparing sample characteristics, network size, and composition, we construct a Strength of Ties (SoT) index based on two objective and two subjective measures of ego-alter ties. We then use this index to analyze tie strength by the types of relationships. On average, the number of alters contacted in one week is much larger in Taiwan than in Hungary, and the gap remains unchanged after controlling for key socio-demographic background factors. Even though the four indicators that we use to construct the SoT index are distributed similarly among the respondents in both Taiwan and Hungary, the composite index pinpoints how the types of relationships play somewhat different roles across the nations. The findings imply that the tendency to maintain only the closest ties with kin and other close friends is linked to distrust to others, a possible ill effect lingering from the authoritarian past. The implication is partially supported by further analyses using the ISSP 2006 survey data. We address how our findings may contribute to the existing literature on the linkage between societal characteristics and interpersonal ties.

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

“…Do the differences in network size observed for core ties also apply to the larger acquaintanceship networks? The scarce empirical evidence for inequalities in broader network size (Dávid et al, 2016;DiPrete et al, 2011;Roberts et al, 2009;Shati et al, 2014;Shokoohi et al, 2010;Van Tubergen et al, 2016) is mixed for gender, age, and education (Van Tubergen et al 2016;DiPrete et al 2011;Shati et al 2014; p. 6 Shokoohi, Baneshi, and Haghdoost 2010;Dávid et al 2016;Roberts et al 2009), but consistent for income (for only two studies; DiPrete et al 2011;Van Tubergen et al 2016), in the sense that people with higher incomes tend to have larger acquaintanceship networks. With regard to social foci, the scarce empirical evidence suggests that religious service attendance (DiPrete et al 2011; in the US) and being employed (Van Tubergen et al 2016; among youths aged 18-25) increase network extensity, suggesting that participation in religious communities and work environments has beneficial effects on acquaintanceship volume.…”

“…A wide variety of methods have been applied to estimate acquaintanceship volume empirically in modern societies, including contact diaries (Dávid, Huszti, Barna, & Fu, 2016;De Sola Pool & Kochen, 1978;Fu, 2005Fu, , 2007Gurevitch, 1961;Lonkila, 1997;Pachur, Schooler, & Stevens, 2014), participant observation (Boissevain, 1974), experiments (Bernard & Shelley, 1987;Freeman & Thompson, 1989;Killworth & Bernard, 1978;Killworth, Johnsen, Bernard, Ann Shelley, & McCarty, 1990), enquiries about the number of sent Christmas cards (Hill and Dunbar 2003), free lists of all related and unrelated network members (Lu, Roberts, Lio, Dunbar, & Crowcroft, 2009;Roberts, Dunbar, Pollet, & Kuppens, 2009), surveys (DiPrete, Gelman, McCormick, Teitler, & Zheng, 2011;McCarty, Killworth, Bernard, & Johnsen, 2001;Shati, Haghdoost, Majdzadeh, Mohammad, & Mortazavi, 2014;Shokoohi, Baneshi, & Haghdoost, 2010;Van Tubergen, Ali Al-Modaf, Almosaed, & Said Al-Ghamdi, 2016), and social media data (Ellison, Steinfield, and Lampe 2007;Arnaboldi, Guazzini, and Passarella 2013;Dunbar et al 2015), often combined with some form of extrapolation to estimate the total set of contacts. These studies led to vastly different estimates of average network size (see Table 1): from less than 100 (free recall; contact diaries for a limited period; online social networks) up to thousands (extrapolation from telephone book experiments or from prolonged contact diaries, participant observation), depending among others on the method of estimation, the characteristics of the sample, and the underlying definition of "knowing someone" (the network boundary).…”

Contact Trees: Network Visualization beyond Nodes and Edges

“…Finally, the case studies we use to map our ContactTrees were taken from a relatively small number of individuals in a single society. As egocentric networks may differ a great deal by political, economic, and cultural institutions, cross-cultural or cross-national comparisons would further reveal variations in interpersonal ties and contacts [ 50 , 55 ]. When compatible samples and data become available from other societies or cultures, the design could be applied and further tested for more widespread usefulness.…”

“…More importantly, they further capture the properties of each unique interaction, or contact, within a relation. When used properly, ContactTrees present overall, succinct tie and contact properties of complex social structures embedded in “egocentric contact networks”, an alternative network reconstruction emerging in the latest comparative studies [ 50 ].…”

Informal Support Networks of Tanzanians With Chronic Diseases: Predictors of Support Provision and Treatment Adherence

“…Future studies should aim to empirically study the association between social support and patients’ well-being and health outcomes. In addition, the use of a name generator to prompt the naming of alters tends to bias the naming of stronger social ties than other methods ( 57 , 58 ). While we can assume that our sampling method elicited participants’ strongest ties who would be most likely to provide informal care and support, we do not know how the number of caregivers in a network compares to the overall network size.…”