Social+Network


 * Definition **

According to the [|Oxford English Dictionary], the concept social network is defined as a “system of social interactions and relationships; a group of people who are socially connected to one another; (now also) a social networking website ” (OED, 2012). According to Parks (2007), social theorist George Simmel was the first to conceptualize the social context of personal relationships in the early twentieth century. The image of a web of affiliations hearkens back to the origins of network and it definition as an intersection of net-like objects (OED, 2012).

Social anthropologists, however, were the first to use the term social network in a description of the interdependent organizational structure of a group of people within a larger social context (Radcliffe-Brown, 1952). In reference to the OED’s (2012) “system of interactions” description of a social network, Parks (2007) similarly defined social networks as “relational maps” (p. 41) that represents the structure of a particular network (see Network Structure).

Social network draws on literature from several disciplines including communication, family studies, psychology, public health, nursing, education, social work, social psychology, and it has its roots in social anthropology (Parks, 2007).


 * Social Network Types **

Researchers (Milardo, 1988; Milardo, 1989) have classified social networks into two different categories as a result of two different methodological approaches:
 * ** Psychological Social Network ** refers to the people with whom an individual deems important, close, or significant. This approach (e.g., Johnson & Milardo, 1984; Parks, Stan, & Eggert, 1983) is the most common in the study of social networks.
 * ** Interactive Social Network ** (Parks, 2000) refers to the people with whom one frequently communicates and is related to Hymes’ (1972) speech community, which often involves individuals that reside in the same geographical area.


 * Social Network Fundamentals **

Parks (2011) highlighted two important fundamental units to the study of social networks:
 * A node refers to the actors or individuals within a social network.
 * A link (also referred to as a tie) is the connection between nodes. Links are defined by the frequency of contact between nodes, the content of the interactions, or the overall strength of the relationship.


 * Strength of Social Network Ties **

Researchers have defined four key types of network ties that vary by the frequency of contact and importance of the relationship between a pair of given actors in a network. Passive ties refer to network connections that are “purely emotional or obligatory in nature without any ongoing social exchanges between individuals” (Marsiglio & Scanzoni, 1995, p. 27), whereas active ties are individuals with whom one frequently communicates (Schmeeckle & Sprecher, 2004). Strong ties include family, close friends, or romantic partners whereas weak ties refer to acquaintances (Granovetter, 1973) or familiar strangers (e.g. grocery clerk, bank teller; Milgram, 1977). Strong and weak ties draws from the psychological social network distinction.


 * Social Network Structure **

The following properties enable the creation of Parks’ (2007) conceptualization of a social network as a “relational map.”

// Network distance // refers to the reachability (Mitchell, 1969) or proximity (Parks & Eggert, 1991) of networks members in relation to each other.

// Network centrality // refers to the number of ties one network member has in relation to others and has shown to impact interpersonal influence (Parks, 2011).

// Network density ­ // refers to the degree of interconnectivity among network members and is measured by calculating the ratio of number of observed to possible links between network members (Parks, 2007).


 * Social Networks in Interpersonal Communication **

The social network perspective in interpersonal communication places an emphasis on the connections among individuals (Parks, 2011) and has implications in conflict, social support, and uncertainty.

// Social Networks and Conflict //. Research on conflict in interpersonal communication has shown that social networks can be a cause of dyadic conflict and can also shape relational conflict (Roloff & Soule, 2002). Social networks can cause conflict between dyads when individuals need to redistribute resources such as time among network members, potentially leading to conflict between the relationship members (Johnson & Leslie, 1982) or between the dyad and their network (Johnson & Milardo, 1984). Research has also indicated that social networks influence conflict, where interaction with one’s network can actually impact the preferred means of conflict resolution (Roloff & Greenberg, 1980).

// Social Networks and Social Support // Research has shown that an individual may reach out to his/her social to better manage uncertainty about the relationship from the perspective of the social network (e.g., Crowley, 2010; Leslie, Huston, & Johnson 1986).

// Social Networks and Uncertainty // The body of literature of uncertainty spans nearly three decades. Following the emergence of uncertainty reduction theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese, 1975), Parks & Adelman (1983) determined that an individual’s social network impacts the perceptions, reduction, and management of uncertainty. Research has shown that information about an individual acquired through one’s social network can be more effective in reducing uncertainty than utilizing a direct uncertainty reduction strategy (Parks & Adelman, 1983).


 * Relevant Theory **

// Social Contextual Theory // assumes that interpersonal relationships and the network structure are communication patterns and both cannot exist “apart from the communication practices in which they are enacted” (Parks, 2007, p. 49). SCT is guided by two basic principles: relationship sensemaking and network structuring (Parks, 2007). At the heart of relational sensemaking is the management of uncertainty of relationships at the network level and is an extension to several interpersonal communication theories, including the theory of motivated information management (TMIM; Afifi & Weiner, 2004), problematic integration theory (PIT; Babrow, 2007), uncertainty reduction theory (URT; Berger & Calabrese, 1975), and the relational turbulence model of uncertainty (RTM; Knobloch & Solomon, 1999). Network structure refers to the make-up of the network and includes network centrality, density, and distance. SCT argues that social networks play an important role in the initiation, maintenance, and deterioration of interpersonal relationships (Parks, 2011).


 * Online Social Networks **

Related to the study of social networks is the emergence of online social network sites (SNS). SNS are interactive environments on the Internet that enable “connection building” (Papacharissi, 2009, p. 201). Most SNS users are typically not seeking new online ties. Rather, one’s SNS ties are generally extensions of his or her offline ties. The emergence of SNS in recent years has led to additional inquiry into the role that hyperconnected members of a social network have on interpersonal relationships.

David J. Roaché (August 2012).

include component="comments" page="page:Social Network" limit="10"


 * References **

Afifi, W.A. & Weiner, J.L. (2004). Toward a theory of motivated information management. // Communication Theory, 14 //, 167-190.

Babrow, A.S. (2007). Problematic integration theory. In B.B. Whaley & W. Sampter (Eds.), // Explaining Communication: Contemporary Theories and Exemplars // (pp. 181-200). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Berger, C.R. & Calabrese, R.J. (1975). Some explorations in initial interaction and beyond: Toward a developmental theory of interpersonal communication. // Human Communication Research, // //1//, 99-112.

Boyd, D. M., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social Network Sites: Definition, History, and Scholarship. // Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13 // (1), 210-230.

Crowley, J. (2010). //Marshaling network support for romantic relationships: Towards the// // development of a typology. // San Francisco: National Communication Association.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. //American Journal of Sociology, 78,// 1361- 1380.

Hymes, D. (1972). Models of the interaction of language and social life. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), //Directions in sociolinguistics: The ethnography of communication// (pp. 35-71). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston,

Johnson, M.P. & 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, 46 //, 893-899.

Johnson, M.P. & Leslie, L.A.(1982). Couple involvement and network structure: A test of the dyadic withdrawal hypothesis. // Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, // 34-43.

Knobloch, L.K. & Solomon, D. H. (1999). Measuring the sources and content of relational uncertainty, // Communication Studies, 50 //, 261-278.

Leslie, L.A. Huston, T.L. & Johnson, M.P. (1986). Parental reactions to dating relationships: Do they make a difference? // Journal of Marriage and the Family, 48, // 57-66.

Marsiglio, W. & Scanzoni, J. (1995). //Families and Friendships: Applying the Sociological// // Imagination //. New York: Harper Collins.

Milardo, R.M. (1988). Families and social networks: an overview of theory and methodology. In R.M. Milardo (Ed.), // Families and social Networks // (13-47), Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Milardo, R.M. (1989). Theoretical and methodological issues in the identification of social networks of spouses. // Journal of Marriage and Family, 51, // 165-174.

Milgram, S. (1977). //The individual in a social world: Essays and experiments//. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Mitchell, J.C. (1969). The concept and use of social networks. In J.C. Mitchell (Ed.), //Social networks in urban situations: Analyses of personal relationships in central African towns// (pp. 1-50). Manchester, England: Manchester University Press.

Papacharissi, Z. (2009). The virtual geographies of social networks: A comparative analysis of Facebook, Linkedin and A Smallworld. // New Media & Society, 11(1&2), // 199-220.

Parks, M.R. (2000). Communication networks and relationship life cycles. In K. Dindia & S. Duck (Eds.), // Communication and personal Relationships // (pp. 55-75). West Sussex, England: Wiley.

Parks, M.R. (2007). //Personal relationships and personal networks.// Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Parks, M.R. (2011). Social networks and the life of relationships. In M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), // Handbook of interpersonal communication 4th edition // (pp. 355-388). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Parks, M.R. & Adelman, M.B. (1983). Communication networks and the development of romantic relationships: An expansion of uncertainty reduction theory, // Human Communication Research, 10 //, 55-79.

Parks, M.R. Stan, C., & Eggert, L. (1983). Romantic involvement and social network involvement. // Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, // 116-130.

Parks, M.R. & Eggert, L. (1991). The role of social context in the dynamic of personal relationships. In W.H. Jones & D. Perlman (Eds.), // Advances in personal relationships, volume 2 // (pp. 1-34). London: Jessica Kingsley.

Radcliffe-Browne, A.R. (1952). //Structure and function in primitive society, essays and// // addresses. // London: Cohen & West.

Roloff, M.S. & Greenberg, B.S. (1980). TV, peer, and parent models for pro- and antisocial conflict behaviors. //Human Communication Research, 6,// 340-351.

Roloff, M.E. & Soule, K.P. (2002). Interpersonal conflict: A review. In M.L. Knapp & J.A. Daly (Eds.), // Handbook of interpersonal communication 3rd edition // (pp. 475-528). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Schmeeckle, M. & Sprecher, S. (2004). Extended family and social networks. In A.L. Vangelisti (Ed.), // Handbook of family communication // (pp. 349-375). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

“Social network.” (2012). In //Oxford English Dictionary Online//. Retrieved 18 July 2012 from [].