Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Social Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socnet

Closeness, loneliness, support: Core ties and significant ties in personal

communities夽
Jens F Binder a,∗ , Sam G.B Roberts b , Alistair G Sutcliffe c
a
Nottingham Trent University, UK
b
University of Chester, UK
c
University of Manchester, UK

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Keywords: Past research has introduced further distinctions within the strong ties that form our personal commu-
Core ties nities. This work aimed at a comparison between core and significant ties in terms of their emotional
Significant ties closeness to ego, the social provisions that are exchanged, the relationship maintenance behaviours
Personal communities
reported, and ego’s loneliness. Measures for all these variables were assessed in a survey study. Evidence
Friendship maintenance
for a trade-off between the number of ties and their level of intimacy was obtained such that having more
Social loneliness
Emotional loneliness core ties was associated with lower levels of intimacy. Distinct signatures for friends from both sets of
ties emerged for friendship maintenance behaviours and social provisions exchanged. Further, social and
emotional loneliness were differentially related to the number and the intimacy of core and significant
ties.
© 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Outline
Personal networks typically consist of a great variety of ties, dif-
fering in their origin and their duration (Grossetti, 2005, 2007).
Research has consistently shown that different types of alters
(social contacts) serve different purposes for the ego (the net-
work owner) and provide different social provisions (Carbery and
Buhrmester, 1998; Granovetter, 1973; Weiss, 1974; Wellman and
Wortley, 1990). Further, studies on personal networks have usu-
ally followed the notion of an interpretable average network size,
be it at the level of wider acquaintance (McCarty et al., 2001) or
for core networks (McPherson et al., 2006). These average figures
were seen from early on as the result of constraints operating on the
ego, the owner of the network (Bernard and Killworth, 1973; Pool
and Kochen, 1978). Constraints may consist of limits on time for
socialising, limited access to communication technology (Wellman,
1999), or even limits on the amount of social information our brain
can process (Hill and Dunbar, 2003; for an overview see Roberts, in
press). Thus, although most people would agree that maintaining
social ties is a very beneficial thing to do, there might be a limit as
to the number of ties that can be maintained.
The present work aims to build on these ideas and to extend
them in an investigation of the social ties that are of highest emo-
tional relevance to ego. In particular, we attempt to distinguish
between two types of strong social ties, following past research
on social networks (Wellman and Wortley, 1990) and recent argu-
ments from evolutionary anthropology (Dunbar, 1998, 2008). We
will focus on the size and composition of these sets of ties, and how
their size may ultimately be constrained by ego’s finite resources
for socialising. Further, we will look into quantitative and poten-
tial qualitative differences between both types of alters in terms
of the functions they fulfil for the ego and their implications for
ego’s emotional well-being. In order to keep alters comparable, we
will limit our investigation of differences to friends, that is, non-kin
alters.
In the following, we will first discuss constraints on network size
in more detail. We will then turn towards the question of how to
distinguish between different types of alters by drawing on studies
of friendships, social support, and loneliness. Finally, to conclude
the introduction, we will sum up our areas of investigation.
2. Constraints on network sizes

The size of any network will depend on how the network is

夽 This research was supported by a joint grant from the ESRC and the EPSRC.
∗ Corresponding author at: School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent Univer-
sity, Burton Street, Nottingham NG1 4BU, UK. Tel.: +44 115 8482416;
fax: +44 115 8486929.
E-mail address: jens.binder@ntu.ac.uk (J.F. Binder).
defined, and a closer look at existing terminologies is necessary
here in order to deal with some inconsistencies in reported find-
ings. For practical and theoretical reasons, researchers have often
distinguished between core and peripheral networks (McPherson
et al., 2006). Importantly, in the context of personal networks,

0378-8733/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2011.12.001
 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
this amounts to a distinction between alters at different levels
of relevance or emotional closeness to ego. In want of a better
term, we will refer to these alters as being part of different sets
within the network. Past studies have tended to look either at the
overall network size (e.g., McCarty et al., 2001) or at the closest
set (e.g., McPherson et al., 2006). It can be argued, however, that
sources of crucial, ongoing support to ego do not only reside in a
set of a very few intimate alters, but can be found in somewhat
less intimate alters as well (Wellman and Wortley, 1990; Plickert
et al., 2007). Here, we are particularly interested in what has been
called personal communities (Pahl and Spencer, 2003; Spencer and
Pahl, 2006; Wellman, 1979), the set of active and relevant ties
that includes close friends and family and forms our micro-social
world.
Several lines of research suggest that personal communities can
be usefully divided into two different sets of ties, albeit under dif-
ferent labels. Wellman and Wortley (1990) distinguished between
strong ties (‘those you feel closest to outside your home’) with a
median size of four and significant ties (‘those who are in touch
with you in your daily life and who are significant in your life’)
with a median size of seven. Similarly, a recent Pew Social Ties Sur-
vey (Boase et al., 2006) separates core from significant ties whereas
Wellman et al. (1988) opt for routine and intimate ties. Dunbar and
Spoors (1995; Dunbar, 1998) define support ties as ties to signifi-
cant alters from whom ego would first seek help in times of crisis.
This is contrasted with sympathy ties, defined as ties to significant
alters that are contacted monthly (Dunbar and Spoors, 1995) or
alters whose death would leave you personally devastated (Buys
and Larson, 1979). Research by Dunbar and colleagues has shown
that both sets taken together average 12–15 alters, with the more
exclusive set of support ties containing around five alters (Dunbar
and Spoors, 1995). This small number of most intimate ties has
also emerged in a number of earlier studies on personal networks
(Milardo, 1992). For the present work, we will adopt the recently
used labels ‘core’ and ‘significant’ ties for those ties that make up our
personal communities. For the sake of simplicity, we will assume
that these sets are equivalent to ‘strong’ and ‘significant’ and so
forth, although we are well aware that this might be an oversim-
plification.
It remains a matter of debate whether core and significant ties
reside in two discrete sets or whether they are organised in different
ways. Non-discreteness could in part account for a certain fluctu-
ation in the estimates of tie numbers. As with all sets of network
ties, number estimates vary according to the elicitation procedure
and the exact definition of these sets. The General Social Survey,
for example, defines core ties exclusively as belonging to important
discussion partners (McPherson et al., 2006) and arrives at compar-
atively low figures (but see Fischer, 2009; Spencer and Pahl, 2006
for critiques). Studies using more inclusive definitions (e.g., Boase
et al., 2006) unsurprisingly yield higher estimates.
Constraints on network sizes have featured prominently in stud-
ies by Dunbar and colleagues (Hill and Dunbar, 2003; Roberts et al.,
2009). For the most part, however, their research has been con-
cerned with extended personal networks that include core and
peripheral ties. As already mentioned, the absolute size of the net-
work is affected by the name generator used and the method of
estimation. Asking participants who they know for a number of
social categories gives a network size of around 290 (McCarty et al.,
2001). In a re-analysis of the same data, Zheng et al. (2006) arrive
at a median of 610 for overall network size. In comparison, Dun-
bar and colleagues have investigated constraints for what they call
the active network – including alters that ego is in contact with
at least once a year and has a genuine personal relationship with.
This active network is thought to have an upper bound of around
150 alters (Hill and Dunbar, 2003). Roberts et al. (2009) found
a negative relationship between active network size and mean
207
emotional closeness between ego and alters in their network. From
this perspective, time and cognitive constraints appear to result in
a trade-off between the number of alters in the network, and the
emotional intensity of each relationship in the network.
There is conflicting evidence whether constraints of the same
nature operate on personal communities. Wellman and Frank
(2001) found that strong and supportive ties seemed to operate
independently of the overall network. Other studies found that
time and cognitive constraints do influence the number of closer
ties. Stiller and Dunbar (2007) demonstrated that the number of
levels of intentionality an individual can process is related to the
number of core ties whereas working memory capacity is related
to the number of significant ties. Further, there is evidence that
when individuals have less time for social relationships (e.g., enter-
ing into a romantic relationship, having dependent children) the
number of strong, non-kin ties that they have tends to decrease
(McCannell, 1988; Milardo et al., 1993). However, as at the level of
extended networks, the constraints may not just influence the size
of personal communities but also their composition – for example,
more core ties may imply less emotionally close alters as there is
a limited amount of time and effort that can be invested in social
relationships.
Next to the issue of constraints, another area of enquiry in this
work concerns the distinction between core and significant ties.
Past studies on personal communities have yielded detailed find-
ings on network size and composition (Degenne and Lebeaux, 2005;
Fischer, 1982; McPherson et al., 2006), the type of support that
these networks offer (Wellman and Wortley, 1990) and how these
networks change over time (Suitor and Keeton, 1997; Wellman
et al., 1997). However, although the distinction between ‘strong’
and ‘weak’ ties is well known (Granovetter, 1973, 1983) and estab-
lished as a theoretical concept, differentiation within the close ties
of personal communities is little understood.
3. Differences between core ties and significant ties
Our understanding of core and significant ties, and the potential
differences between them, is strongly influenced by social psycho-
logical studies on relationships. We contend that information on
functional differences between the two sets of ties can be gained
by adopting an exchange perspective on relationships (e.g., Rusbult,
1980) which emphasizes investments in social ties and costs aris-
ing from them. Two related traditions emerge from this perspective
that are relevant to the present work. Researchers so far have
focussed either on maintenance efforts or on the generation and
exchange of social provisions.
The first approach has been taken in studies on friendships
(Hays, 1985; Oswald et al., 2004; Rose and Serafica, 1986). The
quality and duration of friendships clearly depends on how much
maintenance they receive and of which kind (Hays, 1985, 1989;
Oswald et al., 2004). Oswald et al. (2004; see also Oswald and
Clark, 2006) have developed and validated a measure of friendship
maintenance behaviours that comprises four aspects: positivity,
supportiveness, openness, and interaction (i.e., joint activities).
These dimensions reliably distinguished between close and casual
friends (Oswald et al., 2004), but so far they have not been used to
differentiate core from significant ties within personal communi-
ties.
The second approach goes beyond friendships and addresses
exchange processes in social ties in general. Weiss (1974) pro-
posed that different social provisions (e.g., advice, intimacy) are
derived from different types of relationships (e.g., parents, romantic
partner). This implies that a diverse social network should provide
optimal support. The idea has received empirical support (Carbery
and Buhrmester, 1998; Plickert et al., 2007; Russell et al., 1984;
208 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
Wellman and Wortley, 1990) although provisions are far from being
exclusively associated with relationship types.
Social networks are a source of highly important support to sus-
tain the ego both materially and emotionally, in times of hardships
as well as in every-day life. Individuals with low levels of social
support have higher levels of morbidity and mortality, especially
from cardiovascular disease (for reviews, see House et al., 1988;
Uchino, 2006). In a similar vein, Russell et al. (1984) demonstrated
that loneliness was contingent on social network metrics while at
the same time related to indicators of anxiety and depression. So
it comes as no surprise that research has looked at loneliness as
a correlate of malfunctioning support networks. The link between
loneliness and network variables such as size, density, and quality
of ties has been established by several independent studies (Russell
et al., 1980; Sarason et al., 1987; Stokes, 1985).
Some researchers have made a distinction between social lone-
liness and emotional loneliness (see Green et al., 2001 for an
overview). Building on the original theorizing by Weiss (1973,
1974), social loneliness is seen as indicative of a lack of social
relationships, possibly due to a lack of stimulation and reassur-
ance. Emotional loneliness is seen to occur when there is a lack of
intimacy and deep understanding of the kind we get from a roman-
tic relationship, but also from other close confidants. Studies so
far have empirically validated both concepts (Russell et al., 1984;
Vincenzi and Grabosky, 1989). Social loneliness has consistently
been linked to the size of support networks (Green et al., 2001;
Russell et al., 1984; Vaux, 1988). In contrast, the same studies have
shown that emotional loneliness depends mostly on relationship
status, that is, on the presence or absence of a romantic partner.
4. Study aims
Based on the reasoning outlined above, we can identify three
main areas of investigation for the present work, all based on com-
paring core and significant ties. Such a comparison is, we believe,
useful even if the difference between the two should merely be
one of quantity rather than quality. First, constraints on the size of
personal communities may be reflected in a negative relationship
between the number of alters in each set of ties and the degree of
emotional closeness between ego and those alters, as research has
shown at the level of the extended network (Roberts et al., 2009).
This rests on the assumption that social time is limited and the
frequency of contact between ego and alter is closely related to
the emotional intensity of the relationship (Hill and Dunbar, 2003;
Roberts and Dunbar, 2010). Individuals may either invest lots of
time and have frequent communication with a small number of
people (resulting in a small network but with high emotional close-
ness) or less time and less frequent contact with a larger number
of people (resulting in a large network but with lower emotional
closeness). However, as stated above, it could also be that strong
ties are subject to different processes as implied by Wellman and
Frank (2001).
Second, for both maintenance behaviours and social provisions
we aim to compare the pattern of relationship activities for core and
significant ties. In this, we are following several lines of research
that strongly suggest differentiation within personal communities
(e.g., Dunbar, 1998; Milardo, 1992; Wellman and Wortley, 1990).
In particular, we are interested in the question whether core ties
simply provide everything at a higher level than significant ties, or
whether both types of ties show distinct signatures.
Third, no attempt has been made so far to look at the relationship
between the concepts of social and emotional loneliness on one
hand and core and significant ties on the other. Given the different
functions assigned to these ties, we expect them to be differentially
related to the types of loneliness. It is plausible to assume that social
loneliness should be negatively related to the size of one’s personal
community. However, it is less clear whether this holds to the same
degree for core and significant ties. Regarding emotional loneliness,
one possibility is that a negative relationship only holds for core
ties, due to the high levels of intimacy associated with them.
In the following, we will present preliminary evidence to
address these issues. Our analyses rest on a university-based
sample which has a number of implications. Universities as organ-
isations typically contain a larger proportion of (young) students
and a smaller proportion of staff, all of them in tendency with
a higher socio-economic background as compared to the general
population. As networks develop over the life time (Suitor and
Keeton, 1997; Wellman et al., 1997) and the exchange of social
provisions depends on life stages (Carbery and Buhrmester, 1998),
we are cautious to take levels of mean scores and even relation-
ships among variables as representative of a wider part of society.
Our main goal, however, the comparison between different types of
ties, can be attempted if we keep in mind the nature of the sample
and take the findings as first evidence.
5. Method
5.1. Sample
A total of 303 participants, 70% female, 30% male, were recruited
at a university based at a large city in England. Students (72%)
as well as staff (28%) were recruited in a proportion in line with
the organisation’s overall composition. This procedure yielded a
sample with a broad age range (18–59 years) and a mean age of
26.5 years (SD = 9.1). The vast majority (88%) reported being locally
based. Participants were asked whether they considered them-
selves to be in a relationship with a romantic partner which was
affirmed by 60%. Further analyses focusing on the sample compo-
sition are reported below.
5.2. Procedure and measures
Participants responded to an online survey. This method has
been validated extensively against other techniques for obtaining
self-report measures (e.g., Naus et al., 2009) and has been used by
Nettle (2007) for eliciting core and significant ties. Care was taken
that each participant was able to access the survey only once.
First, core and significant ties were assessed with name genera-
tors that followed closely definitions used in prior studies (Dunbar
and Spoors, 1995; Buys and Larson, 1979; Nettle, 2007). After pro-
viding background information, participants were first asked to
give an initial estimate of the number of core ties using the defini-
tion “people you would seek advice, support or help from in times
of severe emotional or financial crisis”. They were then told to pro-
duce a list of all the people fulfilling this definition. For each alter
listed, respondents were asked how emotionally close they were to
the alter on a scale from 1 to 10, with 10 indicating maximum close-
ness. This measure has been used successfully in previous studies
(Hill and Dunbar, 2003; Roberts et al., 2009). Further, they reported
on the alter’s gender and whether there was any relation by birth
or marriage to the participant.
The procedure was the same when eliciting significant ties. Par-
ticipants were explicitly told to consider people in addition to the
ones they had listed before. The definition used was “people whose
death would leave you personally devastated”.1 The order in which
1
Of course, there are numerous implications the death of another can have. The
demise of a business partner or a spiritual leader could have devastating conse-
quences, for example. In the context of this study, however, it was obvious to
respondents, by the additional information assessed, that only personally known
 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
core and significant ties were assessed and the imposed exclusivity
of groups follows the notion that core ties should display highest
levels of intimacy, yet may also fit the definition for significant ties
(Dunbar and Spoors, 1995).
In the next part of the survey, participants were instructed to
choose one friend from among the core ties and one friend from
among the significant ties, ideally a same-sex friend representa-
tive of the non-kin contacts listed. Detailed measures for these
two friendships were then obtained in the form of maintenance
behaviours and social provisions.
Friendship maintenance behaviours were assessed using the
scales developed by Oswald et al. (2004). Their instrument consists
of 20 items designed to capture four dimensions of maintenance:
positivity (e.g., making each other laugh; expressing thanks), sup-
portiveness (e.g., support during a difficult time; accepting the
other for who they are), openness (e.g., having intellectually stimu-
lating conversations; sharing of private thoughts), and joint activity
(e.g., making an effort to spend time together; visiting each other’s
homes). Several studies (Oswald and Clark, 2006; Oswald et al.,
2004) have demonstrated the reliability and validity of the scales.
For each dimension, item ratings were averaged such that higher
mean values indicated higher frequencies of behaviours on a scale
from 1 to 5. For the chosen alter from the list of core ties (‘core
friendship’) internal consistency was satisfactory for supportive-
ness (Cronbach’s ˛ = .90), openness (˛ = .79), and joint activity
(˛ = .84). For positivity, one item (not returning each other’s mes-
sages) was removed from the scale in order to improve reliability
from ˛ = .60 to ˛ = .73. Internal consistencies for the friend from the
significant ties (‘significant friendship’) were highly similar.
Social provisions were measured using an adapted version of the
Social Provisions Questionnaire (SPQ) by Carbery and Buhrmester
(1998). The SPQ asks for the degree of exchange for each social
provision postulated by Weiss (1974). One provision, nurturance
of others, was removed from the list because it did not seem to
apply well to the context of friendships. This left eight provisions:
companionship, affection, guidance/advice, reassurance of worth,
intimate disclosure, instrumental aid, emotional support, reliable
alliance. Rating scales again ranged from 1 to 5 with higher values
indicating a higher degree of exchange.
The order in which core friendship and significant friendship
were presented in this part of the survey was varied on a random
basis resulting in two different versions of the survey. We checked
for order effects using t-tests on all friendship variables revealed
no differences between the versions, and order of presentation was
therefore dropped from all analyses.
Finally, social and emotional loneliness were assessed follow-
ing the procedure by Russell et al. (1984). Participants were asked
to read through two short descriptions of loneliness and then
to rate how intensely they had been experiencing both kinds of
loneliness on scales from 1 to 5 with higher numbers indicat-
ing more intensity. Social loneliness was described as follows: “A
possible type of loneliness involves not belonging to a group or
social network. While this may be a set of friends who engage
in social activities together, it can be any group that provides
a feeling of belonging based on shared concerns, work or other
activities.” For emotional loneliness the description ran “Another
possible type of loneliness is the lack of an intense, relatively endur-
ing relationship with one other person. While this relationship is
often romantic, it can be any one-to-one relationship that pro-
vides feelings of affection and security.” Both measures have been
validated by Russell et al. (1984) using the UCLA loneliness scale
others could be listed. Further, any strong dependency on financial or spiritual offers
would also be picked up by the first name generator.
209
(Russell et al., 1980) and in subsequent studies (e.g., Green et al.,
2001).
6. Results
After reporting on preliminary checks on the sample and
describing the basic characteristics of the sets of core and significant
ties, we go on to report findings in the order in which we stated our
areas of investigation. First, we relate the number of core and sig-
nificant ties to tie strength within each set. Second, we move on to a
more detailed comparison of two alters, one from each set, in terms
of friendship maintenance behaviours and the exchange of social
provisions. Finally, the relationship between social and emotional
loneliness on one side and characteristics of core and significant
ties on the other is investigated.
6.1. Preliminary analyses and set characteristics
Since online surveys provide less control over the situa-
tion in which participants give their responses, we performed
additional checks for participant self-selection and motivational
biases. Participants who submitted complete information (n = 200)
were compared to those who submitted incomplete informa-
tion (n = 103). Significant differences emerged for the reported
number of core ties (t(300) = 3.95; p < .001) and significant ties
(t(257) = 4.17; p < .001). However, the two subsamples did not dif-
fer in terms of student/staff ratio, location, gender distribution, age
or proportion of romantic relationships, thus making systematic
biases due to self-selection seem unlikely. We therefore inspected
all incomplete responses more closely. Participants with incom-
plete responses had left the study either before entering any names
for significant ties (n = 44) or during the elicitation of this set
(n = 59). With the elicitation of ties forming the first part of the
survey, this means that these participants had not provided any
information on social provisions, maintenance behaviours, or lone-
liness in the following part. It is therefore plausible to assume that
incomplete responses are due to time constraints at the time of
responding. On this basis, we decided to carry out all further analy-
ses on the subsample of n = 200 who filled in all parts of the survey.
Restricting the sample changed average numbers of core and sig-
nificant ties only to a small degree (M = 5.34 vs. M = 5.78 for core
ties, M = 9.47 vs. M = 10.32 for significant ties).2
Basic characteristics of core and significant tie sets are summa-
rized in Table 1. Set sizes were roughly in line with the ones found
previously (Dunbar and Spoors, 1995; Milardo, 1992; Wellman and
Wortley, 1990): M = 5.78 (Median = 5) for core ties and M = 10.32
(Median = 10) for significant ties. Mean emotional closeness was
higher for core than for significant ties (M = 8.60 vs. M = 7.29;
t(199) = 13.43; p < .001). We also examined issues of kinship and
relationship status. There was no difference between tie sets for the
proportion of kin. However, being in a romantic relationship was
associated with having a higher proportion of kin among core ties:
M = .46 vs. M = .37; t(197) = 3.85; p < .001. Likewise, mean emotional
closeness was increased among core ties for those with romantic
partners: M = 8.73 vs. M = 8.42; t(197) = 2.40; p = .02. Yet, the num-
ber of core ties remained the same (without partner M = 6.02; with
2
Additionally, all analyses were performed for staff and students separately. Staff
were older than students (35.7 vs. 23.1; t(299) = 13.7; p < .001) and were more likely
to be in a romantic relationship (76% vs. 54%; t(299) = 3.75; p < .001), thereby increas-
ing sample variability as intended. However, staff and students did not differ in
the sizes for support and sympathy group they reported. In the main analyses, the
magnitude and direction of effects obtained were essentially the same although
statistical significance was sometimes affected, probably due to the different sam-
ple sizes. Results are presented here for staff and students taken together. Further
information can be obtained from the corresponding author upon request.
210 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214

Table 1 Table 2
Summary of characteristics of core ties and significant ties. Friendship maintenance behaviours for core friendship and significant friendship.

Core ties Significant ties Behaviour Core friend Significant friend Effect size d

Set size Openness 4.07 (0.75) 3.62 (0.83) .57

Mean 5.78 (2.66) 10.32 (5.99) Supportiveness 4.26 (0.85) 3.80 (0.90) .52
Median 5 10 Joint activities 3.66 (0.93) 3.31 (0.88) .38
Kin proportion .41 (.26) .40 (.30) Positivity 4.17 (0.71) 3.96 (0.74) .29
Emotional closeness 8.60 (0.92) 7.29 (1.41)
Note. Standard deviations in parentheses. Effect sizes were computed using pooled
Females
standard deviations.
Set size 5.98 (2.50) 11.29 (5.91)
Proportion of female ties .64 (.19) .57 (.20)
Males
Set size 5.27 (3.00) 7.75 (5.35) 6.3. Friendship maintenance behaviours and social provisions
Proportion of female ties .48 (.26) .46 (.27)

Note. Standard deviations in parentheses. All other values are mean scores unless
otherwise indicated.
partner M = 5.61; p = .28). Relationship status did not affect any
characteristic of the significant ties set.
6.2. Set sizes and intimacy of ties
We made use of hierarchical linear modelling (HLM) to inves-
tigate the relationship between set sizes and mean emotional
closeness of ties. HLM takes account of the nested structure of the
data (closeness ratings for each tie nested within core or signif-
icant set) and allows to make full use of the sample size (Bryk
and Raudenbush, 1992; Van Duijn et al., 1999; Wellman and Frank,
2001). For each set, a two-level model was specified. On the first
level (network ties), closeness was predicted from the random
intercept. On the second level (respondent), the random intercept
was then predicted from the sizes of the core and significant sets.
First, we applied the above model to closeness among core ties.
While number of core ties was negatively related to closeness of
core ties ( = −.10; p < .001), the number of significant ties showed
a positive relationship with closeness of core ties ( = .04; p < .001).
We then used closeness among significant ties as the outcome vari-
able. Similarly to before, number of core ties was negatively related
to closeness of significant ties (ˇ = −.10; p < .01). The number of sig-
nificant ties, however, was not significant. Background variables
had no impact on the effects in both analyses. Including age, gender
or relationship status as additional predictors left effects virtually
unchanged.
Given the discrepancy between findings for core and signifi-
cant ties, we investigated this matter in further detail by entering
the ratio of set sizes (i.e., number of core ties divided by number
of significant ties) as an additional predictor at level two of the
model. This was based on the idea of a possible trade-off between
set sizes, in which case they would need to be considered in rela-
tion to each other in the analyses. The ratio had a mean of 0.86
(SD = 1.08; Median = 0.56) reflecting the fact that the core ties set
was generally smaller than the significant ties set. For closeness
of core ties as outcome variable, results remained unchanged, and
ratio was not significant. In contrast, for closeness of significant
ties as outcome variable, ratio was negatively related to closeness
( = −.37; p = .01). In other words, the more core ties in comparison
In order to compare the pattern of activities within relationships
from both sets of ties, we focussed on the reported frequencies
of friendship maintenance behaviours and the exchange of social
provisions for the two friends sampled from both sets. To this
end, we used repeated-measures ANOVAs with type of friend and
behaviours or provisions as within-subjects factors. Mean scores
for the analyses are presented in Tables 2 and 3.
For the frequency of maintenance behaviours, main effects
emerged for type of friend (F(1, 187) = 72.49; 2 = .28; p < .001)
and maintenance dimension (F(3, 561) = 72.12; 2 = .28; p < .001).
Overall, behaviours were more frequently engaged in with the
core friend (M = 4.04) than with the significant friend (M = 3.67).
In addition, an interaction between type of friend and mainte-
nance dimension indicated that the difference between core friend
and significant friend varied across dimensions: F(3, 561) = 6.18;
2 = .03; p < .001. In follow-up t-tests, we found significant differ-
ences on each maintenance dimension; but in terms of effect sizes,
the gap between friends was most pronounced for openness, fol-
lowed by supportiveness, joint activity, and positivity.
We found a similar pattern of results regarding the exchange of
social provisions. Again, a main effect for type of friend indicated
a stronger exchange of provisions with the core friend (M = 4.22)
than with the significant friend (M = 3.75; F(1, 176) = 72.00; 2 = .29;
p < .001). Also, the degree of exchange varied across provisions:
F(7, 1232) = 38.89; 2 = .18; p < .001. Levels were highest for guid-
ance and advice (M = 4.26) and lowest for instrumental aid
(M = 3.56). Importantly, type of friend and provisions interacted
(F(7, 1232) = 2.36; 2 = .01; p = .02) such that differences between
friends, measured by effect sizes, were biggest for reliable alliance
and emotional support and smallest for affection and companion-
ship.
In both sets of findings, then, differences between core and
significant friend were most pronounced for behaviours and provi-
sions that are usually associated with stronger, deeper, and longer
lasting friendships. We further compared emotional closeness for
core and significant friendships and found that they differed signifi-
cantly from each other: Mcore = 8.66; Msignificant = 7.75; t(188) = 7.17;
p < .001. This mirrors the mean difference found for the full sets of
ties reported above.
Table 3
Exchange of social provisions for core friendship and significant friendship.

to significant ties, the less intimate significant ties become. At the Social provision Core friend Significant friend Effect size d
same time, the number of core ties no longer played a significant Reliable alliance 4.44 (0.84) 3.93 (0.90) .59
role. Emotional support 4.44 (0.88) 3.92 (0.97) .56
To provide a further illustration, we dichotomised the number Instrumental aid 3.84 (1.08) 3.27 (1.06) .54
of core and significant ties, via median splits, and used these as Intimate disclosure 4.03 (1.11) 3.46 (1.17) .50
Reassurance of worth 4.32 (0.97) 3.85 (0.97) .48
two factors in an ANOVA on closeness of significant ties. In line
Guidance/advice 4.44 (0.75) 4.08 (0.88) .44
with the regression findings, a significant interaction emerged: F(1, Affection 3.96 (1.13) 3.50 (1.17) .40
148) = 8.72; 2 = .06; p < .01. The condition of fewer significant ties Companionship 4.32 (0.91) 3.98 (0.90) .38
in combination with more core ties showed the lowest closeness Note. Standard deviations in parentheses. Effect sizes were computed using pooled
ratings (M = 6.65) as compared to all other combinations. standard deviations.
 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214 211

Table 4
Summary of regression analyses for the prediction of social and emotional loneliness from the number of ties.

Predictor Criterion

Social loneliness Emotional loneliness

b SE(b) ˇ b SE(b) ˇ

Number of kin, core ties −.025 .050 −.04 −.082 .059 −.09
Number of kin, significant ties −.068 .021 −.24** −.040 .025 −.13
Number of friends, core ties −.011 .039 −.02 .162 .046 .27***
Number of friends, significant ties −.052 .017 −.23** −.084 .020 −.32***

Note. R2 for social loneliness = .09 (p < .01). R2 = for emotional loneliness = .13 (p < .001).
**
p < .01.
***
p < .001.

6.4. Social and emotional loneliness
In order to compare relationships between core and significant
ties on one side and different forms of loneliness on the other, we
ran a set of regression analyses. In particular, emotional and social
loneliness were predicted from the number of kin and the number
of friends in the sets of core and significant ties. We distinguished
between friends and kin as they may have differing effects on social
and emotional loneliness. Results are summarized in Table 4. Social
loneliness was negatively related to the number of significant ties,
but not to the number of core ties. With increasing numbers of kin
(ˇ = −.23) and of friends (ˇ = −.24) among significant ties, loneliness
decreased. The pattern was more complex for emotional loneliness.
Here, the number of core friends was positively related to lone-
liness (ˇ = .27) while significant friends again showed a negative
relationship (ˇ = −.32).
Given that earlier on an association between number of ties
and closeness to these ties had emerged, we also used closeness
to alters rather than their number as predictors of loneliness. The
results of these analyses are summarized in Table 5. No significant
effects were found for social loneliness. For emotional loneliness,
increasing closeness to core friends was negatively related to lone-
liness (ˇ = −.29) whereas closeness to significant friends showed a
positive relationship (ˇ = .26). Closeness to kin did not play a role.
In sum, both forms of loneliness are differentially affected by
core and significant ties. While social loneliness was plausibly
related to the number of significant ties, the larger of both sets,
results were more complex for emotional loneliness. We will turn
to this issue in detail in the discussion.
6.5. Moderation of loneliness effects by relationship status
section. For each predictor variable an interaction term was gen-
erated by centering the variable on its mean score and then
multiplying it with relationship status (coded as 1 and 0 for respon-
dents with and without a partner, respectively). All interaction
terms, together with the other predictors and relationship status,
were then entered in a regression.
For the prediction of social loneliness, relationship status inter-
acted with the number of core kin (ˇ = .22; p < .05). Separate
regressions for respondents with and without a partner showed
the following. Without a partner, overall prediction was markedly
improved (R2 = .24 as opposed to R2 = .09). The number of core kin
showed a negative relationship with social loneliness (ˇ = −.21;
p < .05) as did the number of significant kin (ˇ = −.28; p < .05).
Friends, on the other hand, no longer played a significant role. With
a partner, overall predictive power was reduced (R2 = .05), and the
only predictor to remain significant was the number of significant
friends (ˇ = −.23; p < .05).
When we predicted social loneliness from emotional closeness,
relationship status interacted with closeness to significant friends:
ˇ = .39; p < .05. Again, separate regressions were then carried out
showing that, as before, overall prediction was improved in the
group without a partner (R2 = .21) whereas in the group with a part-
ner it was quite low (R2 = .03). Without a partner, the closeness to
significant friends was negatively related to loneliness (ˇ = −.46;
p < .05). No other significant effects emerged. Taken together, these
findings suggest that having a romantic partner weakens the asso-
ciation between network characteristics and social loneliness.
In contrast to social loneliness, no moderation effects were
found for the prediction of emotional loneliness from number of
ties, and a visual inspection confirmed that effects remained essen-
tially unchanged in both subgroups. The same held regarding the
prediction of emotional loneliness from closeness.

Levels of self-reported loneliness usually depend on presence or 7. Discussion

absence of a romantic relationship. We wanted to know whether
the effects related to loneliness reported so far were dependent
on respondents’ relationship status. We therefore used relation-
ship status as a moderator variable (Aiken and West, 1991; Baron
and Kenny, 1986) in each regression described in the previous
7.1. Summary of findings
This study was designed to gain a better understanding of the
commonalities and differences between core and significant ties

Table 5
Summary of regression analyses for the prediction of social and emotional loneliness from the intimacy of tie sets.

Predictor Criterion

Social loneliness Emotional loneliness

b SE(b) ˇ b SE(b) ˇ

Closeness to kin, core ties −.014 .119 −.01 −.202 .141 −.14
Closeness to kin, significant ties .046 .073 .07 .107 .086 .14
Closeness to friends, core ties −.128 .107 −.14 −.346 .126 −.29**
Closeness to friends, significant ties −.092 .103 −.10 .279 .122 .26*

Note. R2 for social loneliness = .04 (ns). R2 for emotional loneliness = .12 (p < .01).
*
p < .05.
**
p < .01.
212 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
within personal communities. We found the number of ties in
line with previous findings in this area (Dunbar and Spoors, 1995;
Milardo, 1992; Wellman and Wortley, 1990). As stated previously,
however, we are cautious to read too much into mean scores due
to the nature of our convenience sample. Our main study aim was
to investigate how these sets of ties would compare: in terms of
constraints on their number, the social exchanges they are part of,
and their relationship with social and emotional loneliness. In all
these areas, differences between core and significant ties emerged.
Although our distinction between ties simply rests on a particular
use of name generators, we still find it remarkable that changes in
emotional closeness are reflected so clearly in several other vari-
ables.
Regarding constraints on network size, the number of core ties
was negatively related to the emotional closeness of the alters in
this set. Thus, even at the level of the very closest social relation-
ships, there seems to be a trade-off between quantity and quality
– egos with more core ties were, on average, less close to these
people than egos with less core ties. Fewer and closer core ties
could imply better support as previous research suggests. Core ties
have been found to be emotionally intense and at the same time
to involve frequent interaction (Roberts and Dunbar, 2010) and
the exchange of emotional, financial and material support (Plickert
et al., 2007). Wellman and Frank (2001) found that those with fewer
intimate ties were more likely to receive support from each alter,
as compared to those with more intimate ties.
In comparison, for significant ties, there was no direct relation-
ship between the number of ties and emotional closeness. Instead,
we found a relationship with the ratio of set sizes – the more core
ties in comparison to significant ties, the lower the emotional close-
ness to significant alters. Thus it seems that having a comparatively
large number of core ties also has implications for emotional close-
ness among significant ties: egos who invest heavily in their core
ties may have less time and energy to invest in their significant
ties. This issue clearly needs further empirical consideration before
more definite conclusions can be drawn.
Regarding the exchange signatures of friends in both sets, we
found that differences between core and significant friends were
most pronounced for behaviours and provisions that are usu-
ally associated with stronger and deeper friendships – openness,
supportiveness, emotional support, reliable alliance and guid-
ance/advice. Both friends fall clearly into the small group of closest
network ties, the personal community, varying on the emotional
closeness scale by an average of around 1 point on a 10 point scale.
Our findings indicate that even such small changes in closeness are
accompanied by changes in the functions that non-kin ties serve, in
terms of the level of support and advice they provide. Further, our
findings demonstrate the validity of the scale of emotional close-
ness, which is a simple measure of tie strength used in a number of
studies (Hill and Dunbar, 2003; Roberts et al., 2009), and which by
now has now been shown to correlate both with communication
frequency (Hill and Dunbar, 2003) and maintenance behaviours
between individuals.
Our findings also show that different facets of loneliness are dif-
ferently related to core and significant ties: in their associations
with set sizes, with levels of intimacy, and how these associations
are affected by relationship status. Social loneliness was unrelated
to the number of core ties, but decreased with increasing numbers
of significant ties. This suggests that having more significant ties
provides a general feeling of social connectedness – you have a rel-
atively large circle of friends and family you can socialise with and
call on for support if needs be. Having a romantic partner seemed
to act as a buffer against this mechanism such that the association
between number of ties and level of loneliness became markedly
weaker. It needs to be noted, though, that relationship status is
confounded with age and student status in our sample. Staff, who
show a higher percentage of relationships, may also have developed
different strategies to keep social loneliness low.
For emotional loneliness, having more core ties unexpectedly
implied higher levels of loneliness whereas having more significant
ties was indicative of lower levels. One way of resolving this puz-
zle is to include the role of emotional closeness in an explanation.
As stated before, more core ties imply lower levels of closeness.
At the same time, lower closeness levels among core ties imply
more emotional loneliness. A bigger core tie set, then, on average
contains ties that are less suited to counter emotional loneliness
because they are further removed from the ideal remedy, namely
a romantic partner or confidant. The pattern of findings is reversed
for significant ties. It may be that having more significant ties con-
taining less close friends – indicative of less emotional loneliness –
simply means that alters in the core set are chosen with care and
contain few, very close contacts which in turn reduces emotional
loneliness. At present, these processes must remain speculation.
7.2. Limitations and caveats
There are several limitations to this research as well as some
open questions which need to be noted. The first concerns the
nature of our sample. A convenience sample such as the one used
here does not readily allow for a generalization of effects. For this, a
large, representative random sample would be preferable. Whether
differences between core and significant ties that we found will
hold up to a more general and rigorous test remains to be seen.
A similar caveat can be raised regarding the use of online sur-
veys. While our analyses make strong biases due to self-selection
or participant motivation seem unlikely within our sample, clearly
more research using different methods to validate our approach
and to replicate the findings is desirable (for recent developments
in network elicitation, see Hogan et al., 2007).
Another question is to what degree the differences between
core and significant ties are qualitative or quantitative in nature.
Some theories have postulated fundamental functional, and there-
fore qualitative, differences (Dunbar, 1998). However, statistical
differences between two groups are not clear indicators of deep-
running qualitative differences and might just as well be due to
an underlying continuum. One possible solution to this problem
is to look for dissociations between core and significant ties using
multiple variables. In other words, we would need to identify vari-
ables that should be related only to core ties and variables only
related to significant ties. The more such variables are used success-
fully for distinction, the more we can be confident about qualitative
differences. This logic is implicit in our investigation of social and
emotional loneliness, but at this point asserting qualitative differ-
ences would be a foregone conclusion.
Another area of future research concerns longitudinal studies on
how the relationships among core and significant ties change over
time. As this was a cross-sectional study, causal conclusions about
the associations between various factors have to be tentative. This is
most apparent when the relationship between loneliness and net-
work layers is considered. While we have predominantly focused
on possible effects of set sizes on loneliness, we cannot, and do not
want to, rule out effects of initial loneliness on changes in the net-
work sets. The same holds for the question of constraining factors:
does intimacy constrain network size or vice versa? Longitudinal
studies allow for determining how states at time 1 affect states at
time 2, thus yielding more confidence in causal statements.
7.3. Outlook
In this study we demonstrated that not all ‘strong ties’ are
the same, and that in fact there are important differences within
strong ties. Although several studies on social networks have
 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
differentiated within the strong ties of personal communities (e.g.,
Boase et al., 2006; Wellman and Wortley, 1990), there has been
a tendency in other research areas to regard these communities
as uniform and assess it simply in terms of numbers. For exam-
ple, the negative relationship between strength of social support
and morbidity and mortality has been widely replicated (Uchino,
2006). However, level of social support is often measured as a sin-
gle, uni-dimensional concept, without any consideration of either
the strength of individual ties, or the distinction between core and
significant ties (Hammer, 1983; Lin et al., 1999). Including simple,
quick-to-complete measures of both tie sets, and the emotional
closeness of ties therein, may be a way of determining more pre-
cisely the mechanisms that are behind the association between
social support and health outcomes.
Our findings are also relevant to recent work in evolutionary
anthropology. Functional differences between ties and constraints
on network size are central tenets of the Social Brain Hypothesis
(SBH) developed by Dunbar (1998). SBH links network size to brain
evolution and posits that primates have unusually large brains for
their body size due to the complexity of primate social relation-
ships. SBH further predicts constraints on the number of social
relationships humans can maintain at any given level of intimacy
(Hill and Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar, 2008), just as for other primates
(see Roberts (in press) for detailed discussions of constraints on
personal networks). In our study, we have mapped our definitions
of core and significant ties onto the two most intimate sets of net-
work ties recognised by SBH (Dunbar and Spoors, 1995). The fact
that we found differences between ties in the way their number is
possibly constrained, in the way they are maintained and marked
by social exchanges, and in the way they are differentially related
to loneliness, can also further our understanding of the nature and
maintenance of relationships from an evolutionary perspective.
References
Aiken, L.S., West, S.G., 1991. Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interac-
tions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, CA.
Baron, R.M., Kenny, D.A., 1986. The moderator–mediator distinction in social psy-
chological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology 51, 1173–1182.
Bernard, H.R., Killworth, P.D., 1973. On the social structure of an ocean-going
research vessel and other important things. Social Science Research 2, 145–184.
Boase, J., Horrigan, J.B., Wellman, B., Rainie, L., 2006. The Strength of Internet Ties.
Pew Internet & American Life Project, Washington, DC.
Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W., 1992. Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and
Data Analysis Methods. Sage, London.
Buys, C.J., Larson, K.L., 1979. Human sympathy groups. Psychological Reports 45,
547–553.
Carbery, J., Buhrmester, D., 1998. Friendship and need fulfillment during three
phases of young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 15,
393–409.
Degenne, A., Lebeaux, M.-O., 2005. The dynamics of personal networks at the time
of entry into adult life. Social Networks 27, 337–358.
Dunbar, R.I.M., 1998. The social brain hypothesis. Evolutionary Anthropology 6,
178–190.
Dunbar, R.I.M., 2008. Cognitive constraints on the structure and dynamics of social
networks. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice 12, 7–16.
Dunbar, R.I.M., Spoors, M., 1995. Social networks, support cliques, and kinship.
Human Nature 6, 273–290.
Fischer, C.S., 1982. To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in the Town and
City. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Fischer, C.S., 2009. The 2004 GSS finding of shrunken social networks: an artifact?
American Sociological Review 74, 657–669.
Granovetter, M.S., 1973. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology
78, 1360–1380.
Granovetter, M.S., 1983. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. Soci-
ological Theory 1, 201–233.
Green, L.R., Richardson, D.S., Lago, T., Schatten-Jones, E.C., 2001. Network correlates
of social and emotional loneliness in young and older adults. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin 27, 281–288.
Grossetti, M., 2005. Where do social relations come from? A study of personal net-
works in the Toulouse area of France. Social Networks 27, 289–300.
Grossetti, M., 2007. Are French networks different? Social Networks 29, 391–404.
Hammer, M., 1983. Core and extended social networks in relation to health and
illness. Social Science and Medicine 17, 405–411.
213
Hays, R.B., 1985. A longitudinal study of friendship development. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology 39, 460–470.
Hays, R.B., 1989. The day-to-day functioning of close versus casual friendships. Jour-
nal of Social and Personal Relationships 6, 21–37.
Hill, R.A., Dunbar, R.I.M., 2003. Social network size in humans. Human Nature 14,
53–72.
Hogan, B., Carrasco, J., Wellman, B., 2007. Visualizing personal networks: working
with participant-aided sociograms. Field Methods 19, 116–144.
House, J.S., Landis, K.R., Umberson, D., 1988. Social relationships and health. Science
241, 540–545.
Lin, N., Ye, X.L., Ensel, W.M., 1999. Social support and depressed mood: a structural
analysis. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 40, 344–359.
McCannell, K., 1988. Social networks and the transition to motherhood. In: Milardo,
R. (Ed.), Families and Social Networks. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
McCarty, C., Killworth, P.D., Bernard, H.R., Johnsen, E.C., Shelley, G.A., 2001. Compar-
ing two methods for estimating network size. Human Organization 60, 28–39.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Brashears, M.E., 2006. Social isolation in America:
changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological
Review 71, 353–375.
Milardo, R.M., 1992. Comparative methods for delineating social networks. Journal
of Social and Personal Relationships 9, 447–461.
Milardo, R.M., Johnson, M.P., Huston, T.L., 1993. Developing close relationships:
changing patterns of interaction between pair members and social networks.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 44, 964–976.
Naus, M.J., Philipp, L.M., Samsi, M., 2009. From paper to pixels: a comparison of
paper and computer formats in psychological assessment. Computers in Human
Behavior 25, 1–7.
Nettle, D., 2007. Empathizing and systemizing: what are they, and what do they
contribute to our understanding of psychological sex differences? British Journal
of Psychology 98, 237–255.
Oswald, D.L., Clark, E.M., 2006. How do friendship maintenance behaviors and
problem-solving styles function at the individual and dyadic levels? Personal
Relationships 13, 333–348.
Oswald, D.L., Clark, E.M., Kelly, C.M., 2004. Friendship maintenance: an analysis
of individual and dyad behaviors. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 23,
413–441.
Pahl, R., Spencer, L.,2003. Personal communities: not simply families of ‘fate’ or
‘choice’. In: Working Papers of the Institute for Social and Economic Research,
Paper 2003-4. University of Essex, Colchester, UK.
Plickert, G., Côté, R.R., Wellman, B., 2007. It’s not who you know, it’s how you know
them: who exchanges what with whom? Social Networks 29, 405–429.
Pool, I.D., Kochen, M., 1978. Contacts and influence. Social Networks 1, 5–51.
Roberts, S.G.B. Constraints on social networks. Proceedings of the British Academy,
in press.
Roberts, S.G.B., Dunbar, R.I.M., 2010. Communication in social networks: effects
of kinship, network size, and emotional closeness. Personal Relationships 18,
439–452.
Roberts, S.G.B., Dunbar, R.I.M., Pollet, T.V., Kuppens, T., 2009. Exploring variation
in active network size: constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks 31,
138–146.
Rose, S., Serafica, F., 1986. Keeping and ending casual, close and best friendships.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 3, 267–277.
Rusbult, C.E., 1980. Satisfaction and commitment in friendships. Representative
Research in Social Psychology 11, 96–105.
Russell, D., Peplau, L.A., Cutrona, C.E., 1980. The revised UCLA loneliness scale: con-
current and discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 39, 472–480.
Russell, D., Cutrona, C.E., Rose, J., Yurko, K., 1984. Social and emotional loneliness: an
examination of Weiss’ typology of loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 46, 1313–1321.
Sarason, B.R., Shearin, E.N., Pierce, G.R., Sarason, I.G., 1987. Interrelation of social
support measures: theoretical and practical implications. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology 52, 813–832.
Spencer, L., Pahl, R., 2006. Rethinking Friendship: Hidden Solidarities Today. Prince-
ton University Press, Princeton.
Stiller, J., Dunbar, R.I.M., 2007. Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict
social network size. Social Networks 27, 93–104.
Stokes, J.P., 1985. The relation of social network and individual difference variables
to loneliness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 48, 981–990.
Suitor, J., Keeton, S., 1997. Once a friend, always a friend? Effects of homophily on
women’s support networks across a decade. Social Networks 19, 51–62.
Uchino, B.N., 2006. Social support and health: a review of physiological processes
potentially underlying links to disease outcomes. Journal of Behavioral Medicine
29, 377–387.
Van Duijn, M.A.J., Van Busschbach, J.T., Snijders, T.A.B., 1999. Multilevel anal-
ysis of personal networks as dependent variables. Social Networks 21,
187–209.
Vaux, A., 1988. Social and emotional loneliness: the role of social and personality
characteristics. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 14, 722–734.
Vincenzi, H., Grabosky, F., 1989. Measuring the emotional/social aspects of loneliness
and isolation. In: Hojat, M., Crandall, R. (Eds.), Loneliness: Theory, Research, and
Applications. Sage, Newbury Park, CA.
Weiss, R.S., 1973. Loneliness: The Experience of Emotional and Social Isolation. MIT
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Weiss, R.S., 1974. The provisions of social relationships. In: Rubin, Z. (Ed.), Doing
unto Others. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ.
214 J.F. Binder et al. / Social Networks 34 (2012) 206–214
Wellman, B., 1979. The community question: the intimate networks of East Yorkers.
American Journal of Sociology 84, 1201–1231.
Wellman, B., 1999. The network community. In: Wellman, B. (Ed.), Networks in the
Global Village. Boulder, CO, Westview Press, pp. 1–47.
Wellman, B., Carrington, P.J., Hall, A., 1988. Networks as personal communities.
In: Wellman, B., Berkowitz, S. (Eds.), Social Structures: A Network Approach.
Cambridge, UK, CUP.
Wellman, B., Frank, K., 2001. Network capital in a multilevel world: getting support
from personal communities. In: Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R. (Eds.), Social Capital:
Theory and Research. Piscataway, NJ, Aldine Transaction.
Wellman, B., Wong, R.Y., Tindall, D., Nazer, N., 1997. A decade of network change:
turnover, persistence and stability in personal communities. Social Networks
19, 27–50.
Wellman, B., Wortley, S., 1990. Different strokes from different folks. Com-
munity ties and social support. American Journal of Sociology 96,
558–588.
Zheng, T., Salganik, M.J., Gelman, A., 2006. How many people do you know
in prison? Using overdispersion in count data to estimate social struc-
ture in networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association 101,
409–423.