Elsevier

Social Networks

Volume 9, Issue 1, March 1987, Pages 49-61
Social Networks

How much of a network does the GSS and RSW dredge up?

https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(87)90017-7Get rights and content

First page preview

First page preview
Click to open first page preview

References (15)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (28)

  • When networks speak volumes: Variation in the size of broader acquaintanceship networks

    2019, Social Networks
    Citation Excerpt :

    He suggested that these two sizes also apply to the two outer layers (i.e., weaker ties) of personal networks, respectively the “active network” and the “acquaintances layer” (Curry and Dunbar, 2013). A wide variety of methods have been applied to estimate acquaintanceship volume empirically in modern societies, including contact diaries (Dávid et al., 2016; De Sola Pool and Kochen, 1978; Fu, 2005, 2007; Gurevitch, 1961; Lonkila, 1997; Pachur et al., 2014), participant observation (Boissevain, 1974), experiments (Bernard and Shelley, 1987; Freeman and Thompson, 1989; Killworth and Bernard, 1978; Killworth et al., 1990), enquiries about the number of sent Christmas cards (Hill and Dunbar, 2003), free lists of all related and unrelated network members (Lu et al., 2009; Roberts et al., 2009), surveys (DiPrete et al., 2011; McCarty et al., 2001; Shati et al., 2014; Shokoohi et al., 2010; Van Tubergen et al., 2016), and social media data (Ellison et al., 2007; Arnaboldi et al., 2013; Dunbar et al., 2015), often combined with some form of extrapolation to estimate the total set of contacts. These studies led to vastly different estimates of average network size (see Table 1): from less than 100 (free recall; contact diaries for a limited period; online social networks) up to thousands (extrapolation from telephone book experiments or from prolonged contact diaries, participant observation), depending among others on the method of estimation, the characteristics of the sample, and the underlying definition of “knowing someone” (the network boundary).

  • An exploratory comparison of name generator content: Data from rural India

    2017, Social Networks
    Citation Excerpt :

    Since the 1970s sociologists have explored the best means for measuring social networks. While survey questions are most commonly used, many scholars have experimented with different measurement tools, searching for the most valid and reliable methods including the reverse small-world technique and various forms of personal diaries, including a smart phone app that allows participants to enter social interactions in real time (Bernard et al., 1987, 1990; Fu, 2005; Lerner et al., 2014). The appropriate technique, however may depend upon the type of network study being conducted and the research question being asked (Knipscheer and Antonucci, 1990).

  • Critical mass and willingness to pay for social networks

    2010, Electronic Commerce Research and Applications
    Citation Excerpt :

    In practice, there will be an upper limit in number of acquaintance links due to the limitations of human cognition. Bernard et al. (1987) suggested that the upper limit to the number of acquaintances that are cognitively meaningful to humans has mean 290 and median 231; Dunbar (1992) counters that the limit is less, with mean 150 (Dunbar’s number) – Dunbar’s number is the more widely used limit in sociology and anthropology. A more recent study, at the behest of The Economist magazine (The Economist 2009) and conducted by Tim Berners-Lee, suggests that the cognitive limit is 80 ‘friends’ for the Twitter social networking utility, and 120 ‘friends’ on the Facebook website.

  • Self-employment in urban China: Networking in a transition economy

    2009, China Economic Review
    Citation Excerpt :

    A number of studies of social networks from a variety of disciplines find a rule of 150 as the mean size of networks, e.g., 150 is known as Dunbar's number. Anthropologists have doubled the mean size of social networks observed in field work, e.g., Bernard, Shelley & Killworth (1987) find a mean of 290 for the USA. Much depends on what questions are posed to find out the network size.

  • Measuring ego-centered social networks on the web: Questionnaire design issues

    2008, Social Networks
    Citation Excerpt :

    A number of studies have already focused on various aspects of collecting data on ego-centered social networks in recent years, ranging from reliability and validity issues (e.g., van Groenou et al., 1990; Hoffmeyer-Zlotnik, 1990; Bien et al., 1991; Marsden, 1993; White and Watkins, 2000; Kogovšek et al., 2002; Kogovšek and Ferligoj, 2005; Coromina and Coenders, 2006; Kogovšek, 2006; Marin and Hampton, 2007) to the effects of measurement instruments on the characteristics of the networks (e.g., Burt, 1984; Marsden and Campbell, 1984; Bernard et al., 1987; Wellman and Wortley, 1990; Milardo, 1989; Bernard et al., 1990; van Sonderen et al., 1990; Campbell and Lee, 1991; van der Poel, 1993; Bailey and Marsden, 1999; Straits, 2000; McCarty et al., 2001; Feld and Carter, 2002; Marsden, 2003; Lozar Manfreda et al., 2004; Marin, 2004; Kogovšek and Hlebec, 2005; Van der Gaag and Snjiders, 2005).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text