Upload
eric-d
View
212
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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