Social Interaction: Networks

Sociologists study social networks because networks provide the structural element of the mechanism of social interaction. Sociologists consider social interaction to be the basis of the relationship between society and the individual and have called it the central problem of sociology. This article will explore the sociology of social networks in four parts: an overview of network types including informal, formal, social, and interpersonal networks; a description of common methods for studying networks and social support such as social network analysis and social network inventories; a discussion of the primary theoretical and historical foundation of networks; and an exploration of the ways in which gender affects network relationships, experiences, and outcomes. Understanding the role that networks play in society is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social interaction.

Keywords Collective Behavior; Embeddedness; Formal Networks; Group; Informal Networks; Interpersonal Networks; Network Type; Social Network Analysis; Social Network Inventories; Social Networks; Society; Sociology

Social Interaction in Groups & Organizations > Social Interaction: Networks

Networks

Overview

Networks, including their influence and language, are studied across the social, behavioral, natural, and physical sciences (Pescosolido, 2006). Within sociology, social interaction is considered to be the basis of the relationship between society and the individual, and many sociologists have called it the central problem of sociology. Sociologists study social networks because they provide the structural element of the mechanism of social interaction. Social networks are the connecting structures that build friendship groups, organizations, and global relationships. They serve multiple social functions including social support, social influence, social engagement, personal contact, intimacy, attachment, and access to material resources. Social networks hold information and content, and they can help form individuals' beliefs and action scripts. For example, a social network, such as families or friendship groups, might be liberal or conservative and influence its members' political thought or action. The social network perspective prioritizes the social ties surrounding individuals over sociodemographics.

Sociology, anthropology, psychology, and economics all study social networks. All of the social science disciplines were strongly influenced by Mark Granovetter's work on social embeddedness, which today is one of the most influential strains of contemporary social network theory. Exploring how social actors function within networks, he developed his theory of embeddedness, or the trust that is generated by personal relations and structures and networks. Granovetter's theory of embeddedness, which emerged in the 1980s, marked a shift from a quantitative focus on network analysis to a qualitative, case-based focus on network activity. His theory has helped social scientists study how social networks are initiated, coordinated, and terminated. It has lead social network researchers to study the quality of social networks and the structural properties of social networks to identify the factors that facilitate the building of trust relationships. The flexible, plastic nature of the networks concept has facilitated cross-disciplinary exchange on subjects of social interaction, social structures, and social groupings (Grabher, 2006).

Understanding the role that networks play in social life is vital background for all those interested in the sociology of social interaction. This article explores the sociology of networks in four parts:

• An overview of network types including informal, formal, social, and interpersonal networks
• A description of the common methods for studying networks and social support such as social network analysis and social network inventories
• A discussion of the primary theoretical and historical foundations of networks
• An exploration of the ways in which gender affects network relationships, experiences, and outcomes.

Network Types

Network type refers to the particular structures of the interpersonal groupings in which people are embedded. Different network types have different effects on their members; they provide different levels of social support and opportunity to their members. According to Litwin and Landau (2000), network types are often characterized by criteria such as "size, composition, percentage of intimate ties, frequency of contact, duration of ties, and geographic proximity" (par. 7). Despite the differences between network types, though, networks share some similarities in structure and function (Litwin & Landau, 2000).

Sociologists have found a strong relationship between network type, range of support, and well-being outcomes. In particular, older people's social network types have profound effects on their medical treatment choices and medical outcomes. Social support refers to the range of interpersonal help that people require for daily functioning. Examples of social support include the sense of belonging, cognitive guidance, assistance in fulfilling tasks, love, and admiration. Different network types offer different levels of social support (Litwin & Landau, 2000). Networks types include informal, formal, social, and interpersonal networks.

• Informal networks often exist within formal organizations and practices. Informal networks are the webs of relationships through which people exchange resources and services. Informal networks differ from formal networks in the degree to which membership is voluntary and relationships are unofficial. Informal networks often lead to networking activities which build and nurture "personal and professional relationships to create a system of information, contact, and support" (Emmerik, et. al., 2006).
• Formal networks tend to be public, and officially recognized; they possess identifiable memberships and have explicit structures (Emmerik, et. al., 2006). Examples of formal networks include "narrow family-based and wide family-based networks, friend- or neighbor-based groupings, wider community-focused networks, and private restricted networks" (Litwin & Landau, 2000).
• Social networks refer to social structures comprising nodes connected by shared elements such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, and kinship. Social networks — whether they are families, religious groups, or nations — influence the problem solving approaches of their members. Social network types are diverse: they can be flat or hierarchical, dominating or supportive, and resource rich or resource poor (Pescosolido, 2006). Common social networks include kin networks, family-intensive networks, friend-focused networks, and diffuse-ties networks. Kin networks refer to what are usually small, intimate groupings of relatives. Family-intensive networks are less intimate groupings of relatives. Friend-focused networks are loose networks of acquaintances and friends. Diffuse-ties network comprise second-tier friends and relatives (Litwin & Landau, 2000).
• Interpersonal networks refer to social networks consisting of individuals who all belong to the same social category, such as an ethnicity or profession. Members of interpersonal networks view fellow members according to their social categories. Sociologists have found that shared social categories allow individuals to bond over their similarities. Social categories become the foundation for participation in everyday interpersonal networks. People tend to form their social identities through participation in interpersonal networks. Members in an interpersonal network agreed upon behaviors to define and reinforce their shared membership, social category, and identity. Members of interpersonal networks tend to have specific social roles within the group. Social roles are associated with meeting need satisfaction in groups and maintaining group processes. Individual and group self-worth is related to the standing of one's interpersonal network relative to other interpersonal networks. Interpersonal networks, which offer validation, support, and coordinated group action, meet needs related to self-identification such as self-insight, social comparison, in-group cooperation, and inter-group competition (Deaux & Martin, 2003).

Methods for Studying Networks

Social scientists use multiple methods for studying and measuring networks and social support. Two common methods are social network analysis and social network inventories. Social network analysis examines the social relationships of nodes and connections. Nodes are the individual actors, or clusters, within networks. Connections refer to the relationships between actors, nodes, and clusters. A social network map, which may be represented as a social network diagrams, details all the ties, nodes, and connections within a social network. Social network analysis involves documenting social network mapping and social interaction patterns. Research on social network mapping and social interaction patterns may gather quantitative and qualitative information on demographic background and personality, productive and leisure activity participation, general social networks, support networks, shared activity interests, and perceived activity support and deterrence. Research on social network mapping and social interaction patterns has produced influential findings on the relationship between social resources and activity participation (Foose & Hawkins, 2004).

Social Network Analysis

Social network analysis helps uncover the patterning of people's social interactions. Social network analysis is based on the process of sociometry, which was developed in the early 20th century. Social network analysis includes multiple types of metrics including membership, closeness, flow, centrality, clustering, cohesion, density, and reach. Membership refers to the number of individuals directly or indirectly connected within the network. Closeness refers to the extent to which an individual is linked to other members of the network. Flow refers to the extent to which a node is related to other nodes. Centrality refers to the degree of importance of any particular node in a network. Clustering refers to the tendency of nodes to become associated with one another within social networks. Cohesion refers to the degree to which actors and nodes are connected through cohesive bonds. Density refers to the extent to which individuals within a network all know one another, and networks can be sparsely or densely connected. Reach refers to the extent to which members of a network reach out to one another (Freeman, 2008).

Social Network Inventories

In addition to social network analysis, social scientists use social network inventories to measure social support. Social network inventories examine a network's structure and its content (i.e. the support it offers). Social network inventories may focus on and measure network connectedness or the structural and interactional aspects of the network. For instance, a popular social network inventory called the Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire (NSSQ) asks respondents to name the people important to them and describe the characteristics of each of them. The questionnaire also asks respondents to describe the extent to which they would seek out each person in a time of crisis. The Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire has yielded data on network type delineation and the supportiveness of different network types.

Critics of social network inventories, such as the Norbeck Social Support Questionnaire, argue that these instruments are flawed for two reasons. First, they say, social network inventories conflate support with network size and distort the support outcome. Second, social network inventories that require respondents to assign a score to each person may suffer from respondent bias. Respondents may feel obliged to assign support scores based on the relationship they have with the person. For example, adult children may receive a high support rating regardless of their actual offers or shows of support (Litwin & Landau, 2000).

Theoretical & Historical Foundation of Networks

The sociological study of social networks is part of the larger sociological inquiry into collective action and group behavior. Contemporary network theorists, particularly American sociologist Mark Granovetter, borrowed from and built on the early classical studies of collective behavior and group action (Grabher, 2006). In the early 20th century, American sociologists began to study social interaction as a means of understanding and predicting individual and group behavior. The field of collective behavior research, which emerged in the 19th century, established the foundation for the study of the relationships between social structure and social action. Classical sociologists — including Gustave Le Bon, Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand Tönnies, Georg Simmel, and Jacob Levy Moreno — analyzed the activities of social groups to learn how these collective behaviors work and what impact collective behavior has on society. They sought to find the structural determinants of collective behavior, and their work continues to influence how sociologists today conceive of and study collectivities such as networks and groups.

Social psychologists, namely Gustave Le Bon (1841–1931), developed the field of collective psychology to understand and analyze the political and social turmoil of 20th century Europe. Le Bon developed the contagion crowd theory, which holds that crowds exert a hypnotic effect over their participants. Le Bon's work on crowd psychology contributed to the development of the deindividuation theory, which argues that the larger the group size, the higher the degree of anonymity and competition exhibited by members (Kugihara, 2001).

Emile Durkheim (1855–1917), a French sociologist concerned with issues of solidarity and social cohesion, developed the theory of collective conscience to explain social cohesion and collectivity. Collective conscience refers to the shared beliefs and moral attitudes that operate to unify sectors of society. According to Durkheim, it is people's social roles, or functions, that hold society together. He developed the theories of organic solidarity, which attributes the bonds of a population of people to their employment, labor, social roles, and mechanical solidarity, which attributes the bonds of a small group of people to similar interests, values, and beliefs. According to Durkheim, organic and mechanical solidarity promote social cohesion and collective conscience. To learn how individuals relate to society, Durkheim also studied the social structures, societal norms, societal roles, laws, communities, and groups of French society. Durkheim's theories of cultural differentiation and structural differentiation influenced 19th century sociology by explaining how cultural and social structures could foster social cohesion or, alternatively, social divisiveness (Turner, 1990).

Ferdinand Tönnies (1855–1936), one of the founders of classical German sociology, influenced the direction of network and group studies and modern sociology as a whole. His most well-known book, Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft (1887), outlined his theories of social groups. According to Tönnies, there are two types of social groups: gemeinschaft and gesellschaft. Gemeinschaft, which could be represented as a family, is a community with shared values and beliefs. Gesellschaft, which could be represented as a business, is a term used to describe society at large. Gesellschaft are characterized by self-interest and diverse values and mores. Tönnies associated gemeinschaft with communism and gesellschaft with socialism. According to Tönnies, cultures may have elements of both gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Thurnwald & Eubank, 1936).

Georg Simmel (1858–1918), a German sociologist, founded the sociological study of the connections between group size and group actions. The concept of the network can be traced back to his distinction between groups and webs of affiliation. Simmel defined groups as people bound together by a membership or affiliation. Webs of affiliation refer to people bound by a specific type of connection. The webs of affiliation concept introduced the notion that individual action and social behavior result not from individual choice or attributes but from structural social relations. Contemporary social network analysis and the webs of affiliation concept both look to structural causes to explain social behavior (Grabher, 2006). Simmel is also considered to be the first influential sociologist to study the effect of group size on social life (Hare, 1952). Simmel's essay "Quantitative Aspects of the Group" had a strong influence on the development of the group and network studies field. Simmel was one of the first to recognize that the number of participants in a group affects the group's success, quality, and its members' experience. His work in this area exemplifies his view that social structures shape social action (Coser, 1977).

In the 1930s, social scientist Jacob Levy Moreno (1889–1974) developed sociometry. Sociometry is a method for measuring the degree of relatedness among people. Moreno's method has had a significant influence on network research methodologies as described in the following section. Moreno's laboratory research measured the psycho-emotional reactions of people to one another through a sociometric test in which each research participant in a group was required to choose associates based on particular criterion. Moreno documented his research in the book Who Shall Survive (1934) (Schall, et. al., 1950).

Applications

Sociologists study how networks differ across gender, class, and racial groups. This section will explore how gender operates within and effects network relationships, experiences, and outcomes.

For instance, researchers in Italy studied the gender composition of friendship networks at different ages to investigate the impact of some characteristics of friendship networks on the timing of the first sexual intercourse. This large-scale study involved a survey of 5,000 people at 15 different universities in 2000–2001. Researchers found that having friendship networks that include more members of the other gender and talking about sex with friends increases one's likelihood of engaging in sexual activity (Billari & Mencarini, 2004).

Researchers in Kenya studied the connections between gender, social networks, and contraceptive use in the country. Researchers sought to understand how geography and interaction with significant others, including community and family members, influences fertility choices, habits, and outcomes. Research contradicted earlier findings which suggested that kin networks are opposed to innovative fertility behavior. Instead, research participants reported that kin networks supported fertility innovation. The researchers also found that community wide networks had less influence than kin networks on fertility behavior and choices. Further, people with connections to healthcare and family-planning networks within the community were found to have a higher level of contraceptive use (Musalia, 2005).

Mullins and Wright (2003) studied how gender stereotypes are expressed, reinforced, and exploited within street-life social networks to discover how these networks shape the experience of men and women engaged in residential burglary. This study involved structured interviews of 18 female and 36 male house burglars. The researchers sought to understand how gender affects access to and participation in residential burglary networks. They found that gender stereotypes did in fact influence the operations and opportunities within residential burglary networks. Their findings confirmed that residential burglary networks, and street-life in general, is highly gendered, and that stereotypes marginalize women's participation in criminal networks (Mullins & Wright, 2003).

Researchers have also studied how gender differences in network relationships in academia influence the careers of university faculty. Researchers hypothesized that significant differences existed between women's and men's interpersonal academic networks, and their data suggested that significant differences do indeed exist between women's and men's interpersonal academic networks. Contrary to traditionally held theories about the benefits of interpersonal networks for women, interpersonal academic networks were shown to benefit men as well as women (Rothstein & Davey, 1995).

Conclusion

In the final analysis, sociologists consider social interaction to be the basis of the relationship between society and the individual. Social interaction has been called the central problem of sociology. Sociologists study social networks because they provide the structural element of the mechanism of social interaction (Pescosolido, 2006).

Terms & Concepts

Collective Behavior: Spontaneous social actions that occur outside of prevailing social structures and institutions.

Embeddedness: The trust generated by personal relations and structures and networks.

Formal Networks: Public, officially recognized networks which possess identifiable memberships and have explicit structure.

Group: A social unit of two or more members.

Informal Networks: The web of relationships in which people exchange resources and services.

Interpersonal Networks: Social networks consisting of individuals belonging to the same social category, such as ethnicity or profession.

Network Type: The particular structure of interpersonal groupings in which people are embedded.

Social Network Analysis: A method for studying networks and social support that examines the social relationships of nodes and connections.

Social Network Inventories: A method for studying networks and social support that examines a network's structure and its content.

Social Networks: Social structures comprising nodes connected by shared elements such as values, visions, ideas, financial exchange, friendship, and kinship.

Society: A group of individuals united by values, norms, culture, or organizational affiliation.

Sociology: The scientific study of human social behavior, human association, and the results of social activities.

Bibliography

Billari, F. & Mencarini, L. (2004). Gender composition of friendship networks and age at first intercourse: A life-course data analysis. Statistical Methods & Applications, 12, 377–390.

Boekema, F., & Rutten, R. (2004). Knowledge, networks and proximity: an embeddedness perspective. European Planning Studies, 12, 603–605. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=14077910&site=ehost-live

Coser, L. (1977). Masters of sociological thought: Ideas in historical and social context. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Deaux, K. & Martin, D. (2003). Interpersonal networks and social categories: Specifying levels of context in identity processes. Social Psychology Quarterly, 66, 101–117. Retrieved October 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=9989866&site=ehost-live

Emmerik, H., et. al. (2006). Networking your way through the organization: Gender differences in the relationship between network participation and career satisfaction. Women in Management Review, 21, 54–66.

Foose, A. & Hawkins, B. (2004). Social network mapping and social interaction patterns in leisure of older parents. The Gerontologist, 44, 184–185.

Freeman, L. (2008). The study of social networks. International Network for Social Network Analysis. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from http://www.insna.org/sna/what.html.

Grabher, G. (2006). Trading routes, bypasses, and risky intersections: Mapping the travels of "networks" between economic sociology and economic geography. Progress in Human Geography, 30, 163–189. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=20350612&site=ehost-live

Hare, A. (1952, June). A study of interaction and consensus in different sized groups. American Sociological Review, 17, 261–267. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12786692&site=ehost-live

Kugihara, N. (2001). Effects of aggressive behavior and group size on collective escape in an emergency: A test between a social identity model and deindividuation theory. The British Journal of Social Psychology, 4, 575–98.

Litwin, H., & Landau, R. (2000). Social network type and social support among the old-old. Journal of Aging Studies, 14, 213. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=3344364&site=ehost-live

Lovaglia, M. et al. (1995). Negotiated exchanges in social networks. Social Forces, 74, 123.

McGuire, G. (2002). Gender, race, and the shadow structure: A study of informal networks and inequality in a work organization. Gender & Society, 16, 303–322.

Mullins, C. W. & Wright, R. (2003). Gender, social networks, and residential burglary. Criminology, 41, 813–839. Retrieved August 7, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Complete. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=13430355&site=ehost-live

Musalia, J. (2005). Gender, social networks, and contraceptive use in Kenya. Sex Roles, 53(11–12), 835–846.

Nooteboom, B. (2006). Simmel's treatise on the triad (1908). Journal of Institutional Economics, 2, 365–383.

Onaka, F. (2013). Relating socio-cultural network concepts to process-oriented methodology. Historical Social Research, 38, 236–251. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=88102079

Pescosolido, B. (2006). Of pride and prejudice: The role of sociology and social networks in integrating the health sciences. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 47, 189–208.

Rothstein, M. G, & Davey, L. M. (1995). Gender differences in network relationships in academia. Women in Management Review, 10, 20.

Schall, H., Levy, B., & Treselt, M. (1950). A sociometric approach to rumor. Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 121–129. Retrieved August 5, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=16501505&site=ehost-live

Stroope, S. (2012). Social networks and religion: The role of congregational social embeddedness in religious belief and practice. Sociology of Religion, 73, 273–298. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=82827762

The relationship between economics and sociology: The contribution of economic sociology. (2006, March). International Review of Sociology, 16, 31–48. Retrieved August 6, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=20658221&site=ehost-live

Thurnwald, R. & Eubank, E. (1936). Ferdinand Tönnies — in memoriam. American Sociological Review, 1, 430–431. Retrieved August 8, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=12543866&site=ehost-live

Turner, J. (1990). Emile Durkheim's theory of social organization. Social Forces, 68, 1089.

Turner, R. (1990). The many faces of American sociology: a discipline in search of identity. The American Behavioral Scientist, 33, 662.

Walker, M. H., & Lynn, F. B. (2013). The embedded self: A social networks approach to identity theory. Social Psychology Quarterly, 76, 151–179. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=87803459

Suggested Reading

Bögenhold, D. (2013). Social network analysis and the sociology of economics: Filling a blind spot with the idea of social embeddedness. American Journal of Economics & Sociology, 72, 293–318. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=86367712

Hedström, P., & Swedberg, R. (1996). Social mechanisms. Acta Sociologica, 39, 281–308. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=9706043346&site=ehost-live

Hlebec, V., Mrzel, M., & Kogovšek, T. (2012). Assessing social support networks in cross-national comparative surveys: Measurement issues. Quality & Quantity, 46, 1431–1449. Retrieved October 31, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=77493395

Ikegami, E. (2004, August 14). Civility as the grammar of weak-ties social interactions: A historical prelude to cultural citizenship. Conference Papers — American Sociological Association, Retrieved August 4, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=15929678&site=ehost-live.

Koponen, T. (2002). Commodities in action: measuring embeddedness and imposing values. Sociological Review, 50, 543. Retrieved August 4, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=8907747&site=ehost-live.