Abstract
International literature on individual behavior has shown the importance of the network of relationships binding individuals to the people who are close to them in everyday life. Family and other role relations are important sources of emotional and instrumental support, as well as social companionship. For the Italian scenario, the 2003 Generations and Gender Survey offers some challenges for constructing ego-centered support networks based on reasonable assumptions of the frequency of contacts and residential proximity of respondents with kin, friends and neighbors. Focusing on young Italian adults aged 18–34 years who are single or have a partner, we define two kinds of support networks—the potential support ego network and the effective support family network—with the aim of analyzing the effects of network characteristics (size and composition) on the probability of receiving help. Our findings show that couples received more support and more often than singles. Although singles’ potential support networks were more characterized by no family ties than the ones of partners, the availability of a “comprehensive” network or a network not “encapsulated” only in the family increased the probability of receiving help in both groups. Moreover, gender differences provide evidence of distinct behavior between partners in activating their network for (family) support.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Conversely, the complete network design gathers data for all ties linking a set of elements, typically a well-defined group (such as a class, an organization, etc).
Hereafter, we referred to “social support” only as “support,” omitting the term “social.”
The FSS target population is given by households living in Italy. In 2003, a probabilistic two-stage sampling with stratification of primary sampling units (municipalities) was selected with a sample size of about 20,000 households and about 50,000 individuals.
The questionnaires are distinguished by color: the blue, filled out first, collects information on individual (aged 18 years and older) and household characteristics (among which there are items related to the respondent and his/her household social and support ties); the green, filled out second, concerns the work career; the orange, filled out last, gathers data on education, partnership, and fertility intentions. The green and the orange questionnaires are filled out only by individuals older than 16.
A time period is provided in the answer categories: 1. Everyday; 2. Some times a week; 3. Once a week; 4. Some times a month (less than 4); 5. Some times a year; 6. Never.
Information on siblings, children and grandchildren was limited to a maximum of three.
The 14.4 % of couples 18–34 years old had not-cohabiting children. The 98.2 % of not-cohabiting children was below 15 years.
Only “at least once a month” contacts are recorded. This behavior was fulfilled by 94 % of singles and 98 % of couples.
Multiple responses on a list of 11 detailed modalities of support: (1) economic aid; (2) medical care; (3) adult assistance; (4) child assistance; (5) housekeeping; (6) social companionship; (7) administrative procedures; (8) help doing work outside home; (9) help doing homework; (10) free consumption goods (i.e., meals and clothes); (11) other. When a household received more than one type of assistance, the code of the most important help was registered.
Analyses are based on unweighted data.
Based on the observed frequency distribution, the original 11 modalities (see footnote 9) were aggregated in six main categories: (1) economic aid; (2) child assistance; (3) housekeeping; (4) social companionship; (5) administrative procedures; (6) free consumption goods and other help.
References
Aassve, A., Davia, M. A., Iacovou, M., & Mazzuco, S. (2007). Does leaving home make you poor? Evidence from 13 European countries. European Journal of Population/Revue Européenne de Démographie, 23(3–4), 315–338.
Agneessens, F., Waege, H., & Lievens, J. (2006). Diversity in social support by role relations: A typology. Social Networks, 28(4), 427–441.
Ayllón, S. (2009). Poverty and living arrangements among youth in Spain, 1980–2005. Demographic Research, 20(17), 403–434.
Ayman, R., & Antani, A. (2008). Social support and work-family conflict. In K. Korabik, D. S. Lero, & D. Whitehead (Eds.), Handbook of work-family integration: Research, theory, and best practices (pp. 287–304). Amsterdam: Elsevier, Academic Press.
Barbieri, P. (2011). Italy: No country for young men (and women). In H. P. Blossfeld, S. Buchholz, & D. Hofaecker (Eds.), The flexibilization of European labor markets: The development of social inequalities in an era of globalization (pp. 108–146). Cheltenham, UK/Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Barrera, M. (1981). Social support in the adjustment of pregnant adolescents: Assessment issues. In B. H. Gottlieb (Ed.), Social networks and social support (pp. 69–96). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Bellotti, E. (2009). Le reti sociali dei giovani single. Milano: Franco Angeli.
Bernardi, L. (2003). Channels of social influence on reproduction. Population Research and Policy Review, 22(5–5), 527–555.
Blossfeld, H., Klijzing, E., Mills, M., & Kurz, K. (2005). Globalization, uncertainty and youth in society: The losers in a globalizing world. London, UK: Routledge.
Bordone, V., Arpino, B., & Aassve, A. (2012). Policy perspectives of grandparenting in Europe. Dondena working paper 51, Milan: Università Bocconi
Brandes, U., & Wagner, D. (2004). Visone: Analysis and visualization of social networks. In M. Jünger & P. Mutzel (Eds.), Graph drawing software (pp. 321–340). Berlin: Springer.
Breiger, R. (2014). The analysis of social network. In M. Hardy & A. Bryman (Eds.), Handbook of data analysis (pp. 505–526). London: Sage.
Bühler, C., & Fratczak, E. (2007). Learning from others and receiving support: The impact of personal networks on fertility intentions in Poland. European Societies, 9(3), 359���382.
Burt, R. (1983). Distinguishing relational contents. In R. Burt & M. J. Minor (Eds.), Applied network analysis: A methodological introduction (pp. 35–74). Sage: Beverly Hills.
Campbell, K. E., Marsden, P. V., & Hurlbert, J. S. (1986). Social resources and socioeconomic status. Social Networks, 8(1), 97–117.
Castrén, A. (2008). Post-divorce family configurations. In E. Widmer, & R. Jallinoja (Eds.) Beyond the nuclear family: Families in a configurational perspective (pp. 233–254). Bern: Peter Lang.
Cobb-Clark, D. A. (2008). Leaving home: What economics has to say about the living arrangements of young Australians. Australian Economic Review, 41(2), 160–176.
Cohen, S. (2004). Social relationships and health. American Psychologist, 59(8), 676–684.
Cohen-Scali, V. (2003). The influence of family, social, and work socialization on the construction of the professional identity of young adults. Journal of Career Development, 29(4), 237–249.
Dalla Zuanna, G., & Micheli, G. A. (2004). Strong family and low fertility: A paradox? New perspectives in interpreting contemporary family and reproductive behaviour (Vol. 14). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Doreian, P., & Conti, N. (2012). Social context, spatial structure and social network structure. Social Networks, 34(1), 32–46.
Hennig, M., Brandes, U., Pfeffer, J., & Mergel, I. (2012). Studying social networks: A guide to empirical research. New York: Campus Verlag.
Hlebec, V., Mrzel, M., & Kogovšek, T. (2012). Assessing social support networks in cross-national comparative surveys: Measurement issues. Quality & Quantity, 46(5), 1431–1449.
Holdsworth, C., & Solda, M. I. (2002). First housing moves in Spain: An analysis of leaving home and first housing acquisition. European Journal of Population/Revue européenne de Démographie, 18(1), 1–19.
Ketokivi, K. (2012). The intimate couple, family and the relational organization of close relationships. Sociology, 46(3), 473–489.
Kogovšek, T., & Hlebec, V. (2008). Measuring ego-centered social networks: Do cheaper methods with low respondent burden provide good estimates of network composition? Metodološki zvezki, 5(2), 127–143.
Kohler, H., Behrman, J. R., & Watkins, S. C. (2001). The density of social networks and fertility decisions: Evidence from South Nyanza District, Kenya. Demography, 38(1), 43–58.
Marsden, P. (2011). Survey methods for network data. In J. Scott & P. Carrington (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of social network analysis (pp. 370–388). London: Sage.
McCallister, L., & Fischer, C. (1978). A procedure for surveying personal networks. Sociological Methods & Research, 7(2), 131–148.
McNamara Barry, C., & Madsen, S. (2010). Friends and friendships in emerging adulthood. In T. Clydesdale (Ed.), Who are emerging adults. Washington, DC: Changing Spirituality of Emerging Adults Project.
Moore, G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review, 55(5), 726–735.
Mortimer, J. T. (2012). Transition to adulthood, parental support, and early adult well-being: Recent findings from the youth development study. In A. Booth, S. Brown, N. Landale, W. Manning, & S. McHal (Eds.), Early adulthood in a family context (pp. 27–34). National Symposium on Family Issues, Volume 2. New York, NY: Springer.
Mulder, C. H., Clark, W. A. V., & Wagner, M. (2002). A comparative analysis of leaving home in the United States, the Netherlands and West Germany. Demographic Research, 7, 565–592.
Pattison, P., & Robins, G. (2004). Building models for social space: Neighourhood-based models for social networks and affiliation structures. Mathematiques des Science Humaines, 168, 11–29.
Pugliesi, K., & Shook, S. L. (1998). Gender, ethnicity, and network characteristics: Variation in social support resources. Sex Roles, 38(3–4), 215–238.
Rivellini, G. (2006). Network analysis: From theory to applications. Torino: SIS, Atti della XLIII Riunione Scientifica, CLEUP.
Rochelle, T. L., & Shardlow, S. M. (2013). Quality of social networks among UK Chinese. Social Indicators Research, 114, 425–439.
Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 1097–1108.
Rosina, A. (2012). Giovani in Italia: le ragioni di un ritardo. In P. Brovedani & M. L. Bacci (Eds.), Per un’Italia che riparta dai giovani: analisi e politiche (pp. 11–37). Firenze: Ente Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze.
Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2010). Gender and the health benefits of education. The Sociological Quarterly, 51(1), 1–19.
Santarelli, E., & Cottone, F. (2009). Leaving home, family support and intergenerational ties in Italy: Some regional differences. Demographic Research, 21(1), 1–22.
Sarason, I. G., Levine, H. M., Basham, R. B., & Sarason, B. R. (1983). Assessing social support: The social support questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 127–139.
Settersten, R. A. Jr., Furstenberg, F. F. Jr., & Rumbaut, R. G. (2005). On the frontier of adulthood: Theory, research, and public policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Stafford, M., McMunn, A., Zaninotto, P., & Nazroo, J. (2011). Positive and negative exchanges in social relationships as predictors of depression: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Aging. Journal of Aging and Health, 23(4), 607–628.
Stone, J., Berrington, A., & Falkingham, J. (2014). Gender, turning points, and boomerangs: Returning home in young adulthood in Great Britain. Demography, 51, 257–276.
Thoits, P. A. (1985). Social support and psychological well-being: Theoretical possibilities. In I. Sarason & B. Sarason (Eds.), Social support: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 51–72). Boston, MA: Martinus Nijhoff.
Tölke, A., & Diewal, M. (2003). Insecurities in employment and occupational careers and their impact on the transition to fatherhood in Western Germany. Demographic Research, 9(3), 41–68.
Tong, K. K., Hung, E. P. W., & Yuen, S. M. (2011). The quality of social networks: Its determinants and impacts on helping and volunteering in Macao. Social Indicators Research, 102(2), 351–361.
Vaux, A., Phillips, J., Holly, L., Thomson, B., Williams, D., & Stewart, D. (1986). The social support appraisals (SS-A) scale: Studies of reliability and validity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14(2), 195–218.
Vikat, A., Spéder, Z., Beets, G., Billari, F., Bühler, C., Désesquelles, A., et al. (2007). Generations and Gender Survey (GGS): Towards a better understanding of relationships and processes in the life course. Demographic Research, 17, 389–440.
Viry, G. (2012). Residential mobility and the spatial dispersion of personal networks: Effects on social support. Social Networks, 34(1), 59–72.
Wellman, B., & Wortley, S. (1990). Different strokes from different folks: Community ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology, 96(3), 558–588.
Zhu, X., Woo, S. E., Porter, C., & Brzezinski, M. (2013). Pathways to happiness: From personality to social networks and perceived support. Social Networks, 35(3), 382–393.
Acknowledgments
Financial support from “Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft” (DFG) under grant Br 2158/6-1, and from “Università degli Studi di Trieste—Finanziamento per Ricercatori di Ateneo 2011” under project “Analisi statistica di dati relazionali: aspetti metodologici e applicazioni a reti di diffusione della conoscenza.”
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Amati, V., Rivellini, G. & Zaccarin, S. Potential and Effective Support Networks of Young Italian Adults. Soc Indic Res 122, 807–831 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0706-7
Accepted:
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-014-0706-7