15
This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library] On: 19 November 2014, At: 13:16 Publisher: Routledge Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cirs20 Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods Eric D. Widmer Published online: 01 Jun 2007. To cite this article: Eric D. Widmer (2007) Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods, International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationale de Sociologie, 17:2, 225-238, DOI: 10.1080/03906700701356861 To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906700701356861 PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content. This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms- and-conditions

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

  • Upload
    eric-d

  • View
    212

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

This article was downloaded by: [Umeå University Library]On: 19 November 2014, At: 13:16Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Review of Sociology:Revue Internationale de SociologiePublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cirs20

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts:An Empirical Assessment Using SocialNetwork MethodsEric D. WidmerPublished online: 01 Jun 2007.

To cite this article: Eric D. Widmer (2007) Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An EmpiricalAssessment Using Social Network Methods, International Review of Sociology: Revue Internationalede Sociologie, 17:2, 225-238, DOI: 10.1080/03906700701356861

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03906700701356861

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoeveror howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Page 2: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts:An Empirical Assessment UsingSocial Network MethodsEric D. Widmer

Using a sociometric approach to family relationships, we test the hypothesis that the way

individuals define their family context has a strong impact on the types and amount of

social capital available to them. Binding social capital is defined in terms of network

closure, i.e. a redundancy of ties within a group. From this perspective, social capital is to

be found in groups with a high density of connections, network closure enhancing

expectations, claims, obligations and trust among individuals because of the increase of

normative control. Bridging social capital is an alternative way of defining family social

capital as a function of brokerage opportunities: the weaker connections between

subgroups of a network create holes in the social structure which provide some persons*brokers*with opportunities to mediate the flow of information between group members

and hence control the projects that bring them together. Using a sample of college

students from Switzerland, we found that family contexts based on blood relationships

such as those with grandparents, uncles, aunts and cousins, provide a ‘binding’ type of

social capital, whereas family contexts based on friendship provide a ‘bridging’ type of

social capital. Inclusion of stepparents is associated with neither type of social capital.

Introduction

A recent trend of sociological research has emphasized the importance of family

relationships as social capital at the microsociological level (Furstenberg & Hugues,

1995; Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004). The amount of available family support has been

shown to have various positive consequences for individuals, such as promoting

physical and psychological health, more gratifying conjugal relationships, etc.

(Furstenberg & Hugues, 1995; Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004; Widmer, Kellerhals &

Levy, 2004; Widmer, 2004). Much of this work was based on a definition of social

capital in terms of network closure (Coleman, 1988), i.e. a redundancy of ties within

Correspondence to: Eric D. Widmer, Departement de Sociologie, Universite de Geneve, Bd. du Pont d’Arve,

1211 Geneve, Switzerland. E-mail: [email protected]

ISSN 0390-6701 (print)/ISSN 1469-9273 (online) # 2007 University of Rome ‘La Sapienza’

DOI: 10.1080/03906700701356861

International Review of Sociology*Revue Internationale de Sociologie

Vol. 17, No. 2, July 2007, pp. 225�238

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 3: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

a group. From this perspective, social capital is to be found in groups with a high

density of connections, network closure enhancing expectations, claims, obligations

and trust among individuals because of the increase of normative control. It also

facilitates communication flows by multiplying the number of information channels

and reducing the number of intermediaries within a chain (Baker, 1984). In closed

networks, support has a collective nature, as several individuals are likely to

coordinate their efforts when helping another.

A second conceptualization of social capital stems from economic sociology. It

underlines the bridging potential of social ties. Contrary to Coleman’s perspective

(1988), Burt describes social capital as a function of brokerage opportunities: the

weaker connections between subgroups of a network create holes in the structure

which provide some persons*brokers*with opportunities to mediate the flow of

information between group members and hence control the projects that bring them

together (Burt, 2001). Granovetter (1973) and Burt (1995) argue that network closure

as social capital may be detrimental to individuals, as it is associated with social

homogeneity, a lack of personal control over oneself and an absence of non-

redundant information. According to several research on firms and trade markets,

brokerage of social capital provides greater opportunities to innovate, a larger

autonomy of transactions, access to new information because of network hetero-

geneity, etc. (Burt, 2001). However, at the same time, a brokerage role requires

information of both sides of the bridge, as well as a personal investment in time,

energy and sociability in order to create and maintain discrepant personal

connections.

Family ties have been overly regarded as the paramount element of binding social

capital, as they are considered by many as the highest expression of strong ties, i.e.

long lasting, multiplex, highly emotional relationships (Granovetter, 1973) which

create network closure (Coleman, 1988). This assumption, however, is based on

another assumption, which states that the significant family unit is constituted by the

nuclear family, i.e. a married couple and their coresident children. Since the 1970s,

however, scholars of various horizons have underlined the pluralization of family

structures. They have challenged this assumption and proposed that the definition of

a significant family context should be considered as an empirical question rather than

defined by such a priori criteria such as marriage or household membership

(Bernardes, 1993; Firth et al. , 1970; Levin, 1993; Scanzoni & Marsiglio, 1991;

Widmer, 1999; Wilson & Pahl, 1988).

This paper proposes the hypothesis that family contexts that include friends,

stepparents and in-laws are associated with bridging social capital, i.e. sparsely

connected networks with high structural autonomy (Burt, 1995; Granovetter, 1973;

Portes, 2000), while family contexts based on blood ties are associated with binding

social capital (Coleman, 1988), i.e. densely connected networks with a low level of

structural autonomy. As a matter of fact, scholars have emphasized that relationships

among stepparents and stepchildren are perceived as less intimate, less supportive,

and are associated with more conflicts than relationships between parents and

226 E. D. Widmer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 4: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

children (Coleman & Ganong, 1990; Pruett et al ., 1993). Therefore, they are likely to

create relational holes in the family network, which are associated with a binding type

of social capital (Burt, 2000). Relationships with in-laws are likely to create holes as

well: Research has pointed out that relations with parents-in-law were seen as more

distant and more tense than relations with parents (Caplow, 1968; Fisher, 1983; Wish

et al. , 1976). Although the wife�husband bond and the mother�son bond are usually

considered strong, the mother-in-law/daughter-in-law relationships are often

associated with some tension, which is even greater when the daughter-in-law has

a child (Fischer, 1983). Family contexts which include friends considered as family

members show similar trends (Weston, 1997). Quite differently, the tendency of

blood relationships to be transitively organized has been underlined (Widmer, 1999).

The Study

This study is based on the Family Network Method instrument (Widmer, 1999;

Widmer & Lafarga, 2000). A free listing technique is first used in order to delineate

the significant family context of Ego. This is a well-known research strategy in

cognitive anthropology and social psychology, already used in family research to deal

with post-divorce families, kinship networks and the personal networks of spouses

and dating partners (Levin, 1993; Cherlin & Furstenberg, 1994). In our study,

respondents were asked to provide a list of persons that they considered as significant

family members at the time of the interview. They were instructed that by ‘significant’

we were referring to ‘those people in their family who have played a role, either positive

or negative, in their life during the past year ’. We further underlined that we were not

only interested in the people that were significant to the informant because he or she

loved them or respected them, but also in those who had upset them or had made

them angry during the last year. The term ‘family’ was left undefined as respondents

were asked to use their own definition. A total of 229 college students majoring in the

social sciences, from three distinct universities were interviewed with a self-

administered questionnaire, with an interview time ranging from 15 to 30 minutes.

This study included both female and male students, but female students are over-

represented in the sample (77%) because of the sex imbalance of students existing in

the social sciences. The average age of respondents was 22 years old.

Respondents made 2089 citations, which gives a total, after standardization of

minor terminological differences, of 144 terms, among which 70 were cited by one

respondent only. The average length of family lists was 9.8, with no respondent citing

fewer than four family members, and only 9% citing fewer than six. Among the 25

most cited terms, Mother comes first (99% of respondents cited their mother as a

significant family member), followed by father (88%), brother (55%), sister (49%),

maternal grandmother (45%), partner (39%), mother’sister (30%) (see Widmer,

2006, for a detailed list). Note that 28% of respondents cited a female friend and 17%

a male friend as a family member. Also, 11% of respondents cited a mother’s partner

and 10% cited a father’s partner. Parents in law were more rarely cited but 7% cited

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts 227

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 5: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

their partner’s mother and 5% their partner’s father. Overall, the average number of

grandparents cited is 1.05 (S.D.�1.00); the average number of friends is 0.92 (S.D.�1.45); stepparents is 0.21 (S.D.�0.51) and parents in law 0.11 (S.D.�0.41); number

of maternal uncles or aunts is 0.67 (0.91) and number of siblings is 1.23 (S.D.�0.78).

Based on the list of family members provided by each individual, a set of questions

about emotional support, conflict and influence was asked following the Family

Network Method (Widmer, 1999; Widmer & Lafarga, 2000). In this paper we focus on

the emotional support indicator: ‘From time to time most people discuss important

personal matters with other people. Who would give emotional support to X1 during

routine or minor troubles?’. As in other cognitive network studies (Krackhardt, 1987),

respondents not only had to evaluate their own relationships with their personal set

of family members, but also had to evaluate the relationships existing among all the

other family members: each respondent reported all persons in their family context

likely to provide support to each other person (Widmer, 1999; Widmer & La Farga,

2000).

In order to test the hypothesis of family composition on types of social capital, we

refer to four measures commonly used to investigate social capital (Burt, 1995;

Wasserman & Faust, 1994) and apply them to the sociometric reports made by

respondents about the emotional support in their family contexts. These measures

were computed for three different sets of family members, using ‘UCINET 6’

(Borgatti et al. , 2002). A first set, technically known as ego’s in-neighborhood ,

concerns in that case only family members perceived by that respondent as receiving

support from her. These are the family members which have an arrow pointing

towards ego (see Figure 1 below for an example). A second set, defined as ego’s out-

neighborhood , concerns family members perceived by ego as providing her with

support. In that case, the arrow points away from ego to her resource persons. These

two sets of family members do not necessarily fully overlap. For instance, in Figure 2,

ego has six persons in her in-neighborhood (persons in her family network whom, in

her view, she would give emotional support to if needed) and only five persons in her

out-neighborhood (persons in her family network from whom, in her view, she

would receive support), as she does not perceive her father as a potential resource of

emotional support for her (no arrow pointing to ‘father’ in this case). A third set,

defined as ego’s full family network , includes all individuals cited as family members

by ego, not only those with whom she is connected by a supportive relationship.

Four measures are applied to respondents’ in-neighborhoods, out-neighborhoods,

and full family networks. First, size indicates the number of family members included

in ego’s in-neighborhood, out neighborhood, or in her full family network. Density is

then computed as the number of existing connections divided by the number of pairs

of family members cited by ego, i.e. potential connections. It can be computed either

for ego’s supporting or supported family members (her out and in-neighborhoods),

or for her full family network. For instance, the density of the family network

presented in Figure 1 is 0.37, meaning that about half of the support connections

possible in this case are perceived as existing.

228 E. D. Widmer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 6: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

A second set of measures concerns components present in ego’s neighborhood (i.e.

how many family members are directly connected to her) or in the full family

network. A component is technically defined as a ‘maximal connected sub graph’

(Wasserman & Faust, 1994). In other words, a component is a subset of individuals

which is disconnected from the full network, and in which all individuals can reach

each other either directly, or indirectly throughout their connections with

intermediaries. Two persons who are connected neither directly nor indirectly do

not belong to the same component. The more components there are in a network, the

less connected it is. The more components there are in ego’s neighborhood, the more

central ego is within her circle of supportive or supported family members.

Concerning the full family network, the change in the number of components

when ego was removed from the family network was computed. If the number of

components greatly increases when egos are removed from their family context, their

position as intermediaries is said to be high, as their removal makes the full family

network significantly less connected. For instance, the family network presented in

Figure 2 would split into three components if ego was removed, whereas the family

network in Figure 1 remains fully connected (i.e. still one component) after the

removal of ego.

Finally, a measure of ego’s betweenness centrality captures the proportion of

connections within ego’s neighborhood for which she is in a position of intermediary:

ego’s neighborhood is said to be highly centralized if she lies between all or almost all

her family members’ connections. In Figure 2 for instance ego has a high betweeness

centrality (both in terms of supportive and supported family members) as many

members of her family network do not have direct connections with each other but

have to use ego as an intermediary in order to be connected. This is not the case in

the family network of Figure 1 in which a large majority of family members have

direct connections with each other, and therefore do not have to use ego as an

intermediary. Betweenness centralization captures the proportion of interactions in

the full family network captured by any individual. A family context is said to be

centralized if a small number of individuals lie between all other members’ chains of

connections.

Numerical analysis of these network indices, as well as visual inspection of their

distribution, suggests that they follow a nearly normal distribution, with the

exception of the index measuring the number of components, which has only six

values and therefore scores low on tests of normality. In order to capture the effect of

family contexts on family dynamics, we ran a set of regression analyses using the

terms cited as independent variables, and the various network measures as dependent

variables. However, factor analysis and cluster analysis revealed that many of these

terms are highly inter-correlated. Therefore, it is hardly possible to include all terms

in a single regression analysis, because of multi-colinearity problems among

independent variables. Thus, we selected a subset of terms which proved to be

central in the structuring of distinct family contexts (Widmer, 2006). We included the

number of grandparents, friends (without distinguishing between female and male

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts 229

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 7: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Table 1 Indices of family dynamics regressed on a subset of terms. Unstandardized regression coefficients

Grand-parents Friends Partner Step-parents Parents-in-law Uncles and aunts Siblings R2

Egos’ neighborhoodsIn-neighborhood

Size 0.41** 0.93** 0.49 0.14 1.89* 0.44* 0.78* 0.37Density 1.22 �7.15* �17.11** �10.4* 1.85 �1.97 1.12 0.30Proportion of

components�3.45** 1.09 8.91** 5.13* �12.17** �0.74 �6.81** 0.19

Normalized EgoBetweenness

�3.21* 7.23** 20.98** 6.97** �13.12** 1.26 �4.75** �0.38

Out-neighborhoodSize 0.15 0.50** 0.27 0.36 1.16** 0.54** 0.41* 0.23Density 5.43 �8.27** �24.52** �6.51* 7.2 �1.92 3.86* 0.41Proportion of

components�3.44* 1.6 11.81** 2.31 �13.44** �3.0** �5.44** 0.20

Normalized EgoBetweenness

�4.68** 8.8** 23.81** 4.97 �14.11** �0.24 �4.9* 0.39

Full network propertiesDensity �0.03** �0.03** �0.06** �0.06** �0.01 �0.03 �0.0 0.25Variation in number

of componentswith Ego removed

�0.07 0.35** 0.49** 0.21* �0.47** �0.02 �0.14* 0.44

Betweennesscentralization

�0.02 0.03** 0.05** 0.004 �0.03 0.001 �0.04** 0.21

*Sig atB0.05; **Sig at B0.01.

23

0E

.D

.W

idm

er

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 8: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

friends), partner, partner’s parents (parents-in-law), mother’s and father’s partners

(stepparents), mother’s sisters and brothers (maternal uncles and aunts) and siblings

cited as independent variables in a series of regressions using the various network

indices as dependent variables (Table 1).

These regression analyses show that two subsets of terms have consistent and

opposite relationships with network properties. Inclusion of friends creates a greater

proportion of components, a smaller density, and greater ego betweenness centrality,

either in Egos’ neighborhoods or in the full family network. In addition, friends have

a significant impact on the size of Egos’ neighborhood, i.e. egos who cite friends as

family members have significantly more direct supportive and supported others

compared with those who do not. Inclusion of stepparents also make the density of

Egos’ neighborhoods as well as the full family network weaker as well as increasing

the number of components and Egos’ betweenness centrality. But, contrary to

inclusion of friends, it is not associated with an increase of the size of Egos’

neighborhood (regression coefficients are insignificant in that case). Inclusion of

partner does have the same effect on the various indices: it makes ego’s neighborhood

less dense, with more components and more centralized on ego. On the contrary,

inclusion of grandparents, parents-in-law and siblings create more dense and less

centralized ego neighborhoods.

Social network softwares such as Pajek (Batagelj & Mrvar, 1998) makes it possible

to visualize family relational configurations in sociograms (Widmer, 1999a; Widmer

& La Farga, 2000); these provide a simple and elegant way of representing a large

amount of relational information concerning family contexts. Figures 1�3 plot

examples that illustrate the way in which specific family relationships play out in

creating specific types of social capital. Connections among individuals represent

flows of emotional support in their family context as perceived by respondents.

Arrows point to support providers, and connections are not necessarily reciprocal.

Figure 1 shows a typical family context with friends: although friends may have

connections among each other, they are more commonly disconnected from other

family members, except for ego. Thus, because of this separation of family contexts

into two or more components, ego has a high betweenness centrality and is integrated

into a large number of otherwise disconnected components. The post-divorce family

context (Figure 2) is clearly split between the father’s side and the mother’s side, with

ego being in an intermediary position. Because former partners do not keep close

connections, a partition is created in their children’s family contexts. Another quite

widespread feature within post-divorce family contexts is a lack of network closure

(Coleman, 1988) in the triad child�biological parent�stepparent. This makes the

overall family context resemble a chain of connections, highly sensitive to the removal

of certain key players (mainly ego and her biological parents). As a result, ego’s

neighborhood (i.e. family members directly connected to her by supportive

connections) is rather small and sparse. More generally, connections between

stepparents and stepchildren, and between half-siblings or stepsiblings, cannot be

taken for granted. In contrast, Figure 3 shows a family context with uncles, aunts and

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts 231

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 9: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Mother’s sister

Sister

Mother’s sister’s daughter

Mother

Father

Ego

Friend

FriendFriend

Friend

Figure 1 A sample family context with friends cited. Ego’s betweenness out-neighborhood�.54; Ego’s betweenness in-neighborhood�.54;

density�37; size�10; nb of components with ego removed�4.

23

2E

.D

.W

idm

er

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 10: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Father’s daughter

Father’s daughter

Mother’s mother

Mother

Father’s partner

Mother’s partner

Mother’s son

Ego

Partner

Father

Figure 2 A sample family context with stepparents cited. Ego’s betweenness out-neighborhood�.83; Ego’s betweenness in-neighborhood�.83; density�.40; size�9; nb of components if ego removed�3.

Socia

lC

ap

ital

inW

ide

Fa

mily

Con

texts2

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 11: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Father’s brother’s daughter

Father’s brother

Father’s mother

Father’s brother

Father’s brother

Father

Mother

Father’s father Ego

Mother’s sister’s daughter

Mother’s sister’s son

Mother’s sister

Mother’s sisterMother’s mother

Mother’s brother

Mother’s brother’s daughter

Brother

Figure 3 A family context with grandparents, uncles and aunts. Ego’s betweenness out-neighborhood�.13; Ego’s betweenness in-

neighborhood�.13; density�.29; size�18; nb of components if ego removed�1.

23

4E

.D

.W

idm

er

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 12: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

several grandparents. In this case, several generations of blood related individuals are

interconnected within a dense family network and ego has a low centrality in her own

family network.

Discussion

Types of social capital depend to a large extent on the alters cited as family members.

Inclusion of grandparents, parents in laws, uncles and aunts, is associated with an

overrepresentation of a binding type of social capital. In these contexts, many

individuals are embedded in a dense set of ties. Egos have relatively low centrality in

their own families, i.e. many connections among their alters do not depend on them,

and their family context is resistant to their own removal. As these contexts include

members of prior generations, this is a typical case of intergenerational closure

(Coleman, 1988), with Egos being under the scrutiny of a large number of

interconnected parents and relatives. Thus, individuals in these family contexts

have less structural autonomy, but they also benefit from a collective rather than

dyadic form of support and normative framing associated with intergenerational

closure (Coleman, 1988). When family contexts are dense, psychological and material

support flow (by definition) through multiple channels, with the probability of

having them all at one point suddenly disrupted being very small, and the likelihood

of having several persons collaborating in giving support being high. Close knit

family contexts may also exert more normative pressure towards conformity, as many

alters join their efforts in influencing Egos.

When friends are included in the family context, bridging social capital is

dominant: there is a high centrality of Egos as well as a high overall centralization of

the whole family context. These ‘star-like’ family contexts split into several

disconnected parts when Egos are removed. Egos control the flow of communication

much more than in other types of family contexts. In fact, alters cannot contact each

other without the assistance of Egos. Therefore, Egos have a great amount of

structural autonomy. However, they do not benefit from collective support and

normative framing. When significant family contexts are sparse, psychological and

material support flow through a smaller number of channels, the risk of having the

whole family context suddenly disrupted is comparatively high, and the likelihood of

having several persons collaborating in providing support small. But on the other

hand, ‘star-like’ family contexts also exert less normative pressure towards

conformity, as alters are much less able to join their efforts in influencing Egos;

they may even exert contradictory normative influences on Egos.

Contrary to our prediction, inclusion of stepparents are not representative of a

bridging type of social capital. As predicted, the centrality of Egos is higher in these

contexts than in others. These family contexts are sensitive to removals, not only of

Egos, but of their parents and of other family members too. When these alters are

removed, family contexts split into a great number of components. Therefore, post-

divorce family contexts do not resemble star-like family contexts but rather paths of

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts 235

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 13: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

relationships. This is likely to be a peculiar situation for Egos in terms of social

capital, as they have an intermediary position to persons who also have such a

position in regard to others, etc. In other words, connections to alters do not provide

access to well-bounded and dense subgroups but rather to a continuum of

individualized connections. In addition, Egos’ direct connections are limited in

number, as their neighborhoods are small. To summarize, Egos in post-divorce family

contexts have a small number of connections embedded in long paths of alters.

Therefore, neither bridging nor binding social capital are available in comparable

quantities as in other family contexts. More optimistically put, there is a much more

active work required in ‘doing kinship’ (Schneider, 1980; Cherlin & Furstenberg,

1994) to create and maintain these chains of relationships than in family contexts

characterized by intergenerational closure.

These results shed new light on the effects of family structures on the amount and

types of social capital available. Inclusion of friends, grandparents, stepparents, etc.,

in significant family contexts have a strong impact on the relational configurations

that they are associated with, and thus, on the social capital that they make available

to individuals. The beneficial effect of intergenerational closure on adolescent

development has been underlined (Furstenberg & Hugues, 1995). In this respect,

family contexts oriented towards kinship are optimal: siblings, uncles and aunts, and

grandparents do associate in closeknit family networks. However, some scholars have

stressed the burdens associated with family closure: concepts of amoral familism

(Banfield, 1958), family interference (Johnson & Milardo, 1984; Widmer et al. , 2004)

or family overcare (Pyke & Bengston, 1996) suggest that a binding social capital

within families may have some detrimental effects that a bridging social capital may

escape. Bridging social capital provides specific advantages in terms of personal

autonomy and the availability of innovative resources and information, which may

prove important during some of the key transitions of the life course. As for

individuals involved in post-divorce family contexts, their lack of either bridging or

binding social capital may explain various outcomes of divorce and remarriage of

parents for their children’s trajectories, such as leaving the parental home and school

earlier, etc. (Cherlin et al. , 1998).

Note

[1] X refers to all individuals included by ego in her or his family context, considered one by one.

References

Baker, W. (1984) ‘The social structure of a national securities market’, American Journal of Sociology,

vol. 89, pp. 775�811.

Banfield, Ed. (1958) The Moral Basis of a Backward Society, The Free Press, Chicago, IL.

Bernardes, J. (1993) ‘Responsabilities in studying postmodern families’, Journal of Family Issues , vol.

14, pp. 35�49.

236 E. D. Widmer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 14: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Borgatti, S., Everett, M. G. & Freeman, L. C. (2002) UCINET 6 for Windows. Software for Social

Network Analysis , Analytic Technologies, Harvard.

Borgatti, S. & Jones, C. (1998) ‘Network measures of social capital’, Connections , vol. 21, pp. 1�10.

Burt, R. (1995) Structural Holes. The Social Structure of Competition , Harvard University Press,

Cambridge, p. 313.

Burt, R. (2001) ‘The social capital of structural holes’, in New Directions in Economic Sociology, eds

M. F. Guilleen, R. Collins, P. England & M. Meyer, Russel Sage Foundation, New York.

Caplow, T. (1968) Two Against One. Coalitions in Triads , Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.

Cherlin, A. J. & Furstenberg, F. F. (1994) ‘Stepfamilies in the US: a reconsideration’, Annual Review

of Sociology, vol. 20, pp. 359�381.

Cherlin, A., Chase-Lansdale, J., Lindsay, P. & McRae, C. (1998) ‘Effects of parental divorce on

mental health throughout the life course’, American Sociological Review , vol. 63, no. 2, pp.

239�249.

Coleman, J. (1988) ‘Social capital and the creation of human capital’, American Journal of Sociology,

vol. 94, pp. 95�121.

Coleman, M. & Ganong, L. H. (1990) ‘Remarriage and stepfamily research in the 1980s: Increased

interest in an old family form’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 52, pp. 925�940.

Firth, R., Hubert, J. & Forge, A. (1970) Families and their Relatives , Routledge & Kegan Paul,

London.

Fischer, L. R. (1983) ‘Mothers and mothers-in-law’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 45, pp.

187�192.

Furstenberg, F. F. & Hughes, M. E. (1995) ‘Social capital and successful development among at-risk

youth’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 57, no. 3, pp. 580�592.

Furstenberg F. F. & Kaplan S. B. (2004) ‘Social capital and the family’, in Blackwell Companion to the

Sociology of Families , eds M. Richards, J. Scott & J. Treas, Blackwell, London, pp. 218�232.

Ganong, L. H. & Coleman, M. (1994) Remarried Family Relationships , Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.

Granovetter, M. S. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 78, no. 6,

pp. 1360�1380.

Johnson, M. J. & Milardo, R. M. (1984) ‘Network interference in pair relationships: A social

psychological recasting of Slater’s theory of social regression’, Journal of Marriage and the

Family, vol. 46, pp. 893�899.

Krackhardt, D. (1987) ‘Cognitive social structures’, Social Networks , vol. 9, pp. 109�134.

Levin, I. (1993) ‘Family as mapped realities’, Journal of Family Issues , vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 82�91.

Portes, A. (2000) ‘The two meanings of social capital’, Sociological Forum , vol. 15, no. 1, pp. 1�11.

Pruett, C. L., Calsyn, R. J. & Jensen, F. M. (1993) ‘Social support received by children in stepmother,

stepfather and intact families’, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage , vol. 19, no. 3�4, pp. 165�179.

Pyke, K. D. & Bengston, V. (1996) ‘Caring more or less: Individualistic and collectivist systems of

family eldercare’, Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 58, pp. 379�392.

SAS Institute (1995) SAS/QC Software: Usage and reference I and II , SAS Institute, Cary, NC.

Scanzoni, J. & Marsiglio, W. (1991) ‘Wider families as primary groups’, Marriage and Family

Review , vol. 17, no. 1�2, pp. 117�133.

Schneider, D. M. (1980) American Kinship. A Cultural Account , The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago, London.

Wasserman, S. & Faust, K. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , Cambridge

University Press, Cambridge.

Weston, K. (1997) Families we Choose: Lesbian, Gays, Kinship , Columbia University Press, New

York.

Widmer, E. D. (1999) ‘Family contexts as cognitive networks: a structural approach of family

relationships’, Personal Relationships , vol. 6, pp. 487�503 (Special Issue on Methodological

and Data Analytic Advances in the Study of Interpersonal Relationships).

Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts 237

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014

Page 15: Social Capital in Wide Family Contexts: An Empirical Assessment Using Social Network Methods

Widmer, E. D. (2004) ‘Couples and their networks’, in Blackwell Companion to the Sociology of

Families , eds M. Richards, J. Scott & J. Treas, Blackwell, London, pp. 356�373.

Widmer, E. D. (2006) ‘Who are my family members? Bridging and blinding social capital in family

configurations,’ Journal of Personal and Social Relationships , vol. 23, no. 6, pp. 979�998.

Widmer, E. D. & La Farga, L.-A. (1999) ‘Boundedness and connectivity of contemporary families: a

case study’, Connections , vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 30�36.

Widmer, E. D. & La Farga, L.-A. (2000) ‘Family networks: a sociometric method to study

relationships in families’, Field Methods , vol. 12, no. 2, pp. 108�128.

Wilson, P. & Pahl, R. (1988) ‘The changing sociological construct of the family’, Sociological Review ,

vol. 36, no. 2, pp. 233�266.

Wish, M., Deutsch, M. & Kaplan, S. (1976) ‘Perceived dimensions of interpersonal relations’,

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 409�420.

238 E. D. Widmer

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Um

eå U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] at

13:

16 1

9 N

ovem

ber

2014