African American Extended Family and Church‐Based Social Network Typologies

• Author: Linda M. Chatters,Ann W. Nguyen,Robert Joseph Taylor
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12218
• Published date: 01 December 2016
• Date: 01 December 2016

A W. N Case Western Reserve University

L M. C  R J T University of Michigan

African American Extended Family and

Church-Based Social Network Typologies

We examined social network typologies among

African American adults and their sociodemo-

graphic correlates. Network types were derived

from indicators of the family and church net-

works. Latent class analysis was based on a

nationally representative sample of African

Americans from the National Survey of Ameri-

can Life. Results indicated four distinct network

types: ambivalent, optimal, family centered, and

strained. These four types were distinguished

by (a) degree of social integration, (b) network

composition, and (c) level of negative inter-

actions. In a departure from previous work, a

network type composed solely of nonkin was

not identied, which may reect racial differ-

ences in social network typologies. Further, the

analysis indicated that network types varied

by sociodemographic characteristics. Social

network typologies have several promising

practice implications, as they can inform the

development of prevention and intervention

programs.

Extended family and church-based social net-

works are important resources for African

Americans (Krause & Bastida, 2011; Taylor,

Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied

Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University,

11235 Bellower Road, Cleveland, OH 44106-7164

(nguy333@usc.edu).

Key Words: Black family, informal social support, religion,

social network, social network typologies.

Chatters, & Levin, 2004) because they provide

social support to their members in the form

of instrumental, emotional, social, and psy-

chological assistance and resources. Among

African Americans, social networks provide

informal support to address personal issues such

as physical and mental health problems (Cohen,

Brittney, & Gottlieb, 2000; Taylor, Chae, Lin-

coln, & Chatters, 2015) and daily life stressors

(Benin & Keith, 1995). Moreover,social support

is linked to higher levels of overall well-being

(Nguyen, Chatters, Taylor, & Mouzon, 2016;

Smith, Cichy, & Montoro-Rodriguez, 2015)

and lower rates of serious psychological dis-

tress (Gonzalez & Barnett, 2014; Taylor et al.,

2015). Studies of church-based social support

similarly indicate that informal social support

exchanges involving congregants are extensive

(Taylor et al., 2004) and protective against

mental and physical illnesses (Chatters, Taylor,

Woodward,& Nicklett, 2015; Krause & Bastida,

2011).

Research on family and church-based social

support typically uses a variable-centered appro-

ach, which implies that the population is homo-

geneous and that correlates of social support

operate similarly for all groups. In contrast,

a person-centered approach to social support

assumes that the population is heterogeneous

and seeks to identify meaningful subgroups or

typologies of social support. The advantages of

the person-centered approach to social networks

include the ability to account for the complex-

ity of social networks (e.g., interactional and

functional aspects) and to identify and conrm

Family Relations 65 (December 2016): 701–715 701

DOI:10.1111/fare.12218