African American Extended Family and Church‐Based Social Network Typologies

AuthorLinda M. Chatters,Ann W. Nguyen,Robert Joseph Taylor
DOIhttp://doi.org/10.1111/fare.12218
Published date01 December 2016
Date01 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

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT