A variety of procedures developed to identify network members may be classified into measures of psychological networks (i.e., those people who are perceived as significant) or interactive networks (i.e., those individuals with whom interactions occur routinely). I examine the structural correspondence between these networks and argue that the network types are noncorrespondent, varying predictably in membership and composition. Descriptions of psychological networks were gathered from spouses in face-to-face interviews. The same spouses were subsequently interviewed by phone on seven nonconsecutive days in order to gather contemporaneous data on their interactive networks. Comparisons of the network types reveal minimal overlap; approximately 25% of the network members identified are included in both networks. Further analyses demonstrate that the size of the psychological network is unrelated to the actual social participation of spouses. Psychological and interactive networks tap unique aspects of an individual's life space, suggesting a theoretical and substantive significance that goes well beyond the explicit issue of methodological refinement.
[1]
M K Kaiser,et al.
MANOVA method for analyzing repeated measures designs: an extensive primer.
,
1985,
Psychological bulletin.
[2]
Barry Wellman.
Domestic work, paid work and network
,
1984
.
[3]
Catherine A. Surra.
The influence of the interactive network on developing relationships.
,
1988
.
[4]
R. Milardo.
Personal Choice and Social Constraint in Close Relationships: Applications of Network Analysis
,
1986
.
[5]
R. Milardo,et al.
Network Interference in Pair Relationships: A Social Psychological Recasting of Slater's Theory of Social Regression
,
1984
.
[6]
T. Huston,et al.
Surveying the landscape of marital behavior: A behavioral self-report approach to studying marriage.
,
1987
.
[7]
S. Sarason.
The Psychological Sense of Community: Prospects for a Community Psychology
,
1974
.