Introduction The personal network being assessed is based on support networks. The entire network was separated into two tables: a strong tie network and a weak tie network to be evaluated more closely to either support or argue against the claims of literature on social network ties and support networks. The networks were studied using various measures, including: network size, average tie strength, age homophily, female proportion, ethnic diversity and homophily, kin centredness, total supportiveness, average complexity, and density.
Average Tie Strength In the Table 1 network, the average tie strength was 2.92. The strongest possible tie strength was 3 and the weakest possible tie strength was 1. Because the average tie strength Table …show more content…
There were slightly more females within the strong tie network than the weak tie network. However, the proportion of females in the entire network was 0.48. The numbers illustrate how in both the strong and weak tie networks, there is roughly an even amount of individuals of the two sexes. While statements were made on the network differences between men and women (Smith-Lovin and McPherson 1993), this personal network showed low differences as a result of the biological sex balance. According to Smith-Lovin and McPherson (1993), the gender differences in the networks of men and women altered the outcome of the respondent, such as issues relating to work opportunities and family …show more content…
The difference in the numbers can be explained through the average tie strength. The level of closeness can influence the amount and the types of support. Thus, individuals provided more types of supports in the strong tie network rather than the weak tie network because they were closer. According to Feld (1981), multiplexity was an extended characteristic of density in personal networks in such that multiplexity influences density as a result of sharing foci. The average multiplexity in the entre network was 2.74, meaning that most individuals in network provided approximately three types of support.
Density In the strong tie network, the density was 0.44, meaning that is neither dense, nor sparse. A reason for this is probably due to how the people in the strong tie network were met in various settings that were not close with one another, lowering the chances of potential interaction. Density for the weak tie network was 0.28, meaning that the network is very sparse. In a sparse network, it is less likely that each individual do or will know each other because they are not as connected compared to the strong tie network. The density calculation for the entire network was not required. Given that the strong tie network had a greater average multiplexity, the network was denser as well, supporting the relation between multiplexity and density by
Average Tie Strength In the Table 1 network, the average tie strength was 2.92. The strongest possible tie strength was 3 and the weakest possible tie strength was 1. Because the average tie strength Table …show more content…
There were slightly more females within the strong tie network than the weak tie network. However, the proportion of females in the entire network was 0.48. The numbers illustrate how in both the strong and weak tie networks, there is roughly an even amount of individuals of the two sexes. While statements were made on the network differences between men and women (Smith-Lovin and McPherson 1993), this personal network showed low differences as a result of the biological sex balance. According to Smith-Lovin and McPherson (1993), the gender differences in the networks of men and women altered the outcome of the respondent, such as issues relating to work opportunities and family …show more content…
The difference in the numbers can be explained through the average tie strength. The level of closeness can influence the amount and the types of support. Thus, individuals provided more types of supports in the strong tie network rather than the weak tie network because they were closer. According to Feld (1981), multiplexity was an extended characteristic of density in personal networks in such that multiplexity influences density as a result of sharing foci. The average multiplexity in the entre network was 2.74, meaning that most individuals in network provided approximately three types of support.
Density In the strong tie network, the density was 0.44, meaning that is neither dense, nor sparse. A reason for this is probably due to how the people in the strong tie network were met in various settings that were not close with one another, lowering the chances of potential interaction. Density for the weak tie network was 0.28, meaning that the network is very sparse. In a sparse network, it is less likely that each individual do or will know each other because they are not as connected compared to the strong tie network. The density calculation for the entire network was not required. Given that the strong tie network had a greater average multiplexity, the network was denser as well, supporting the relation between multiplexity and density by