ROI-Where did all the confidants go?
Did Americans swap a confidant for more weak unredundant ties? Has competitive edge and desire for information eclipsed that non-kin confidant that McPherson reports Americans have lost since 1985? As a culture have we turned our relationships into a commodity? If it's all about ROI and maximizing the sparse networks with which we have connections as discussed in the Burt article, then why does McPherson's analysis of the size and type of confidant network matter?
My answer is this-Though it is easy for us to think solely in terms of what contacts would helps us profit by adding to our financial or human capital, a lot of contacts and networks are based on similarity to oneself and the plain old "likeability" factor. Humans respond to reciprocity therefore no matter how useful a contact could be, through the correlation between that contacts resources and one's own, if the other person sees herself as different, in competition with, or somehow better than you are it's unlikely that you will get the informational benefits, access, timing and referrals that Burt mentions in his article. Bottom line is- these people in your network have to actually like you, not superficially tolerate you, in order to take you into their informational flow. These perks will not be afforded to those with very weak ties. For this reason, the drop from 2.94 confidants in 1985 to 2.08 reported by McPherson in 2004 is concerning. Further concerning is the fact that the confidant lost is most likely a non-kin confidant which very well could be that "foot in the door" to your next opportunity.
Grovetter reports that in a random sample of job searchers in a Boston suburb 55.6% of those finding a job through their contacts reported seeing the person occasionally (which corresponds with more than once a year but less than twice a week), and 27.8% reported seeing their contact rarely (meaning once a year or less). This is evidence that indeed the structural position of a contact overrules their motivation to help. The rationale behind this is that weak contacts are more likely to run in circles different from your own, therefore their information flow and ability to help will be greater.
Granovetter also points to the small world studies of Milgram to illustrate this point. I found this to be a particularly strong assertion because in deciding who to pass my folder to, in the end, I trusted it more with a weak tie than with a stronger tie due to her greater connections. Also interesting was the study cited where students were asked to rank their 8 best friends. The top two friends listed linked to the smallest number of people while those ranked 7th and 8th linked to the most. These studies directly connect with the Burt reading which defines social capital as the structure of contacts in one's network and the resources that they hold. According to Burt, since people tend to develop relationships with those like themselves, it is clear why the first two contacts on the student's list linked to the fewest people. Network structure and centrality are good predictors of similarity in attitudes and behaviors.
So to conclude, sadly, our core discussion groups have shrunk by 1 since 85' and the numbers of Americans reporting that they discuss important matters with no one has tripled. McPherson reported that the educational heterogeneity of networks has decreased and non-kin ties have dropped off most precipitously. The biggest implication of these findings is that Americans have less counseling support. Perhaps increasing levels of general American distrust contribute to this drastic change in network structure. The elimination of non-kin ties could also reflect this trend. In light of all the advantages of having larger more sparse networks, is it possible that Americans have swapped a confidant for more weak ties? Have our networks just shrunk generally? I suppose it's a tradeoff that we have to make, counseling support vs. ROI.
Questions:
What are some possible reasons that African Americans and other minorities appear to have smaller confidant networks? The change is most apparent in kinship networks. What could account for this difference (historically or otherwise) and why could this be seen as a disadvantage?
McPherson's article claims that women have achieved equality in kin and non-kin ties; however this equality has been achieved due to the shrinking of male non-kin confidant networks rather than the growth of female non-kin networks. Why are non-kin confidant networks shrinking? Does this reflect general American distrust?