|
Social Network & Generation: Analysis of Younger adult and Older Adult’s Social Discussion Network in Shiraz City
|
Mohammad Taghi Abbasi Shavazi   , Maryam Hashempour-Sadeghian |
| Shiraz University |
|
|
Abstract: (1920 Views) |
| Core discussion network (CDN) is one of the most important elements of any society which has experienced important developments and changes. This study aimed to describe and analysis younger adult and older adult’s CDN, and investigating changes in their CDN. This study was conducted by survey method and the study sample was 600 young people aged 15-29 and adults aged 40-65 in Shiraz who were selected using multi-stage random sampling method. Core discussion network was completed using a social network assessment questionnaire between two generations, younger adults and older adults. The important descriptive results of this study show that the size of CDN, network density, frequency of interactions and closeness of the older adult’s network are greater than younger adults. In contrast, ethnic heterogeneity and social support received from network are also greater for young people. The inferential results show that although the test of the difference between structural, interactive and functional dimensions of the younger adults and older adult’s CDN is not significant, but the differences of some of the indexes of each of them are significant. In general, it seems that the CDN of people in Shiraz is changing towards network individualism. |
|
| Keywords: Core discussion network, Network analysis, older adults, Social ties, younger adults. |
|
|
Full-Text [PDF 511 kb]
(296 Downloads)
|
Type of Study: Research |
Subject:
Special
Received: 2019/10/2 | Accepted: 2020/04/29 | Published: 2020/04/29
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| References |
|
1. Bastani, S. (2001) »Middle class community in Tehran: Social networks, social support and marital relationships«, Doctoral dissertation in sociology, Toronto University. 2. Burt, R. S. (1980) »Models of network structure«, Annual review of sociology, 6, 79-141. [ DOI:10.1146/annurev.so.06.080180.000455] 3. Chang, P. F.; Choi, Y. H.; Bazarova, N. N.; Löckenhoff, C. E. (2015) »Age Differences in Online Social Networking: Extending Socioemotional Selectivity Theory to Social Network Sites«, Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 59, 2, 221-239. [ DOI:10.1080/08838151.2015.1029126] 4. Chen, W. (2013) »Internet Use, Online Communication, and Ties in Americans' Networks«, Social Science Computer Review, 31, 4, 404-423. [ DOI:10.1177/0894439313480345] 5. Dolapo Somefun, Oluwaseyi; Simo Fotso, Arlette (2020) »The effect of family and neighbourhood social capital on youth mental health in South Africa, Journal of Adolescence, 83, 22-26. [ DOI:10.1016/j.adolescence.2020.06.009] 6. Fischer, C. S. (2009) »The 2004 GSS finding of shrunken social networks: An artifact?«, American sociological review, 74, 657-669. [ DOI:10.1177/000312240907400408] 7. Fung, H. H.; Carstensen, L. L.; Lang, F. R. (2001) »Age-related patterns in social networks among European Americans and African Americans: Implications for socioemotional selectivity across the life span«, Aging and human development, 52, 3, 185-206. [ DOI:10.2190/1ABL-9BE5-M0X2-LR9V] 8. Hampton, K. N.; Ling, R. (2013) »Explaining communication displacement and large-scale social change in core networks: A cross-national comparison of why bigger is not better and less can mean more«, Information, Communication & Society, 16, 4, 561-589. [ DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2013.777760] 9. Hampton, K. N.; Sessions, L. F.; Ja Her, E. (2011) »Core networks, social isolation, and new media«, Information, Communication & Society, 14, 1, 130-155. [ DOI:10.1080/1369118X.2010.513417] 10. Israel, B. A.; Antonucci, T. (1987) »Social network characteristics and psychological well-being: Areplication and extension«, Health education Quarterly,14, 4, 461-481. [ DOI:10.1177/109019818701400406] 11. Manago, A. M.; Taylor, T.; Greenfield, P. M. (2012) »Me and My 400 Friends: The Anatomy of College Students' Facebook Networks, Their Communication Patterns, and Well-Being«و Developmental Psychology, 48, 2, 369-380. [ DOI:10.1037/a0026338] 12. McPherson, M.; Smith-Lovin, L.; Brashears, M. E. (2006). »Social Isolation in America«, American Sociological Review, 71, 3, 353-375. [ DOI:10.1177/000312240607100301] 13. Rainie, L. & Wellman, B . (2012). Networked. London: The MIT press. [ DOI:10.7551/mitpress/8358.001.0001] 14. Small, M. L. (2013) »Weak ties and the core discussion network: Why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters«. Social Networks, 35, 470-483. [ DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2013.05.004] 15. Small, M. L., PAMPHILE, V. & Mcmahan, P. (2015) »How stable is the core discussion network?«, Social Networks, 35, 90-102. [ DOI:10.1016/j.socnet.2014.09.001] 16. Tubergen, F. V. (2014) »Size and socio-economic resources of core discussion networks in the Netherlands: differences by national-origin group and immigrant generation«. Journal of Ethnic and Racial Studies, 37,6, 1020-1042. [ DOI:10.1080/01419870.2012.734390] |
|
|
|
