The Influence of Core Networks on Informal Support in Social Networks

1. Lecture 11 Case Studies in Information Networks Part I

2. Homophily and Network Ties: Religious Switching (Cheshire 2000) Triangles=High Racial Dissimilarity Circles= Low Racial Dissimilarity

3. Structure of Interactions and Information Flow • The structure of a given network can have significant effects on outcomes at the (a) individual and (b) aggregate level. • Individual level: Capacity to get/receive assistance, advice, help, resources. • Aggregate level: Regardless of individual efforts, the network structure in which a group of individuals are embedded can impact success/failure of some outcome(s).

4. What’s a Core Network? • “Highly Salient Relationships” • Strong Ties • Homophilous Ties • High Density • Low Diversity “core networks constitute key sectors of routine interpersonal environments that serve as primary loci of interpersonal contact”

5. Network Structure & Social Support in Non-routine Situations Questions Addressed: • How do networks allocate resources? • How are core network ties activated in non-routine situations? Questions NOT Addressed: • “Who gets what or how much from different network structures?” • What were the outcomes?

6. The Influence of Core Networks “individuals' experiences in core networks produce "interpretive contexts" or "frames" that condition individuals' responses to nonroutine situations, through their effects on individuals' routine experiences.”

7. ‘Core’ Arguments (Hurlbert, Haines and Beggs 2000) • Structure of core networks should affect allocation of resources in two specific ways: • Individuals embedded in core networks that facilitate support reception will activate a higher proportion of their core network ties than those embedded in networks that do not facilitate such support. • Individuals will receive a higher proportion of their informal support from individuals inside, rather than outside, their core networks.

8. Network Structure Hypotheses • Increased Density higher proportion of core ties activated (and higher proportion compared to those outside core) • Increased Size of Core higher proportion of core ties activated (and higher proportion compared to those outside core) • Greater Geographic Dispersion  lower proportion of core ties activated (and lower proportion of informal support providers coming from core)

9. Different Structures Affect Likelihood of Tie Activation • Individuals who are embedded in higher-density networks activate ties for informal support better than those in lower-density networks. Low Density High Density / Integrated

10. Diversity and Tie Activation • Higher representation of men in core higher proportion of activated core ties (and greater proportion of informal support prividers will come from core) • Older members of core  lower proportion of activated core ties (and lower proportion of informal support prividers will come from core) • Greater number of kin in core higher proportion of activated core ties (and greater proportion of informal support prividers will come from core)

11. Different Structures Affect Likelihood of Tie Activation • Greater gender diversity also better activates ties for informal support.

12. Different Structures Affect Likelihood of Tie Activation • Greater proportions of younger individuals, men, and kin also better activates ties for informal support. Example of Social Support Network of a Homeless Woman (Mitchell 1994)

13. A Growing List… So now we have at least 3 key issues about how, when, and why individuals connect through social networks: • Weak / Strong Ties • Homophily • Core Networks & Informal Support What are some of the implications for designers of information systems?