Social networks -> Stress -> Social Support
Suitor, J. Jill, Pillemer, K. & Keeton, S. (1995) "When experience counts: The effects of experiential and structural similarity on patterns of support and interpersonal stress." Social Forces, 73(4), p. 1573-1588
Summary of main points
The article attempts to provide backing for the "specificity hypothesis" (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Pearlin, 1985) - which contends that different problems will call for different kinds of supportive resources, and, therefore, different kinds of individuals that are capable of producing such resources. In fact, the sources of support may change not only with the kinds of problems but with the different stages of a particular problem, as the problematic circumstance progresses (1574). In the specificity hypothesis, however, the issue of "similarity" between the individual and the persons they rely on for various types of supports, is implicit. The "homophily theory" provides the necessary bridge, arguing that individuals are more likely to develop and maintain relationships with people like them (tell me who are you friends and I will tell you who you are, we like our friends to be like us, etc...). This is especially important when looking at adjustments to life events and suggests that people will seek support from people like them.
The difference between this article and the work on homophily theory, is that this article considers not just structural similarities like gender, age, employment, etc... but also experiential similarity - did the person you might turn to experience something similar. In a way, this tries to get at the idea of "understanding". How many times have we thought - X or Y just doesn't understand me, they simply "don't know what it's like". It's the "walk a mile in my shoes" idea. Of course, people who have recently experienced a particular life event are actually likely to be similar to us. That is, younger people are more likely to be dealing or having recently dealth with transitions from home to college to working life. Older people and people who haven't gone to college may have a very different understanding of the problems and needs of those who are going through the experience. Alternatively, social statuses may play a dominant role in strucutral individuals' identities definining their range of experiences and the level of understanding (see Thoits on identity).
This article suggests and their data seems to support the idea that experiential similarity is the MOST important factor determining which associates are sources of support and which are sources of stress. The latter happening through lack of understanding and feelings of being threatended if the individual is attempting to transcend social status boundaries by going to school later in life for example. In fact, structural similarity had a significant effect on both support and interpersonal stress when experiential similarity was not taken into account. Unfortunatley, the authors do not investigate the correlation between the two, but this does point to the dangers of model misspecification. If experiential similarity is not measured, it may LOOK like structural similarity is important, however, it is only important in as much as it is correlated with experiential similarity.
The article also illustrated that as individuals progress through a particular life event or transition, they change the individuals with whom the interact, changing the levels of support and interpersonal stress they experience and the sources they receive them from. So, maybe, experiential similarity is really important when individuals experience live events or transitions and not so much between these. This would help explain surprising findings by Wellman & Wortley (1990) that contended a lack of association between structural similarity and community involvement and support.
Relevance:
This article provides and intersting hypothesis for why movers (especially long distance movers) often surround themselves with other people who have moved, and, specifically, other people who have moved from a similar origin to a similar destination under similar circumstances. This may be one reason why new yorkers in LA seek out other new yorkers, why international students end up developing a circle of other international students even if not from the same country, etc. This also may be one reason why existing now-long-distance ties don't seem to provide enough support and those that make new ties fairly quickly, ties that they can draw on for support, do better in terms of ease of move and subsequent adjustment to the new location. On one hand, this seems sort of self-evident, on the other hand... well it's nice to have support for an argument that is so nicely laid out.
Reference leads (other things to look up)
Allen, Graham (1989) Friendship: Developing a sociological perspective. Westview Press. like most Allen books, this one is probably out of print and hideously difficult to get!
Marsden, Peter (1988) "Homogeneity in confiding relationships" Social Networks 10:57-76
Rook, Karen (1984) "The negative side of social interaction: impact on pschological well-being" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:1097-1188
source: JSTOR
Abstract: Previous research has suggested that individuals benefit from having associates who are similar to themselves on a variety of dimensions. This article develops a theoretical basis for predicting which types of similarity are most important in determining whether associates will be sources of social support or interpersonal stress. Drawing upon theories of homophily and reference groups, we suggest that experiential similarity (e.g., having experienced a similar status transition) is more important than structural similarity (e.g., similarity of age, gender, marital status) in determining sources of emotional support and stress following life events. The theoretical arguments are supported by data from two separate longitudinal studies of social networks following status transitions; specifically, returning to school and becoming the primary caregiver to an elderly parent.
Summary of main points
The article attempts to provide backing for the "specificity hypothesis" (Cohen & McKay, 1984; Pearlin, 1985) - which contends that different problems will call for different kinds of supportive resources, and, therefore, different kinds of individuals that are capable of producing such resources. In fact, the sources of support may change not only with the kinds of problems but with the different stages of a particular problem, as the problematic circumstance progresses (1574). In the specificity hypothesis, however, the issue of "similarity" between the individual and the persons they rely on for various types of supports, is implicit. The "homophily theory" provides the necessary bridge, arguing that individuals are more likely to develop and maintain relationships with people like them (tell me who are you friends and I will tell you who you are, we like our friends to be like us, etc...). This is especially important when looking at adjustments to life events and suggests that people will seek support from people like them.
The difference between this article and the work on homophily theory, is that this article considers not just structural similarities like gender, age, employment, etc... but also experiential similarity - did the person you might turn to experience something similar. In a way, this tries to get at the idea of "understanding". How many times have we thought - X or Y just doesn't understand me, they simply "don't know what it's like". It's the "walk a mile in my shoes" idea. Of course, people who have recently experienced a particular life event are actually likely to be similar to us. That is, younger people are more likely to be dealing or having recently dealth with transitions from home to college to working life. Older people and people who haven't gone to college may have a very different understanding of the problems and needs of those who are going through the experience. Alternatively, social statuses may play a dominant role in strucutral individuals' identities definining their range of experiences and the level of understanding (see Thoits on identity).
This article suggests and their data seems to support the idea that experiential similarity is the MOST important factor determining which associates are sources of support and which are sources of stress. The latter happening through lack of understanding and feelings of being threatended if the individual is attempting to transcend social status boundaries by going to school later in life for example. In fact, structural similarity had a significant effect on both support and interpersonal stress when experiential similarity was not taken into account. Unfortunatley, the authors do not investigate the correlation between the two, but this does point to the dangers of model misspecification. If experiential similarity is not measured, it may LOOK like structural similarity is important, however, it is only important in as much as it is correlated with experiential similarity.
The article also illustrated that as individuals progress through a particular life event or transition, they change the individuals with whom the interact, changing the levels of support and interpersonal stress they experience and the sources they receive them from. So, maybe, experiential similarity is really important when individuals experience live events or transitions and not so much between these. This would help explain surprising findings by Wellman & Wortley (1990) that contended a lack of association between structural similarity and community involvement and support.
Relevance:
This article provides and intersting hypothesis for why movers (especially long distance movers) often surround themselves with other people who have moved, and, specifically, other people who have moved from a similar origin to a similar destination under similar circumstances. This may be one reason why new yorkers in LA seek out other new yorkers, why international students end up developing a circle of other international students even if not from the same country, etc. This also may be one reason why existing now-long-distance ties don't seem to provide enough support and those that make new ties fairly quickly, ties that they can draw on for support, do better in terms of ease of move and subsequent adjustment to the new location. On one hand, this seems sort of self-evident, on the other hand... well it's nice to have support for an argument that is so nicely laid out.
Reference leads (other things to look up)
Allen, Graham (1989) Friendship: Developing a sociological perspective. Westview Press. like most Allen books, this one is probably out of print and hideously difficult to get!
Marsden, Peter (1988) "Homogeneity in confiding relationships" Social Networks 10:57-76
Rook, Karen (1984) "The negative side of social interaction: impact on pschological well-being" Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 46:1097-1188
posted by Q at 01:04
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home