Residential mobility and the spatial dispersion of personal networks: Effects on social support

Abstract

Using a representative national sample of personal networks, this article explores how the spatial dispersion of networks, residential mobility and social support are linked. Three issues will be addressed here. Firstly, how is the spatial dispersion of personal networks related to individuals’ social characteristics, network composition and residential mobility? Secondly, how do the spatial dispersion of networks, residential mobility and their combined effect influence the number and (thirdly) the structure of emotional support ties? Results showed that the extent of the support was affected neither by the geographical distribution of the networks nor by residential mobility. Living far from one's birthplace, however, exerted two distinct, and opposite effects on the support network structure. On the one hand, mobility led to high spatial dispersion of personal contacts, which in turn favored a sparsely knit network centered around the mobile individual. On the other hand, by controlling for the effect of distance between the contacts, we found that individuals that cited long-distance ties tended to be part of more transitive support networks than those that cited local ties. We interpreted the latter effect as evidence that transitive ties may survive greater spatial distances than intransitive ones. These findings are discussed in view of spatial mobility and social network research.

Introduction

The ever-increasing need to be spatially mobile – requisite of highly advanced societies – challenges people to find new ways of developing social ties. Less integrated within the local community than sedentary individuals, mobile individuals have the challenge of maintaining their own social ties in a broader spatial range. In this regard, spatial mobility has an ambivalent nature. On the one hand, the spatial dispersion of friends and family is seen as an obstacle to the building of social ties, as it minimizes opportunities for sharing lasting, intimate relationships outside of the household. On the other hand, moving increases the possibility of making new contacts with select individuals and joining new groups outside the local community.

Recently, this debate has received considerable attention from both mobility and social network analysts (e.g. Carrasco et al., 2008, Kesselring, 2006, Larsen et al., 2006, Lubbers et al., 2010, Mok et al., 2007, Mok et al., 2010). One of the important issues here is how networks change in size and structure as people move. One hypothesis argues that mobile people belong to networks that, without necessarily being different in size, are fragmented, i.e. structured around mutually disconnected clusters of ties and personal contacts stemming from their mobility trajectory. Their interpersonal ties in several places prevent them from bringing their various social circles together. Moreover, the social networks developed by mobile people far from their place of origin are likely built around potentially new roles and foci (i.e. new people, places, social positions, (national) cultures or group memberships) (Feld, 1981). We can then assume that these social circles remain relatively disconnected from the original network, not only because they are removed from it, but also because they were built in a different social context. Dispersed both geographically and socially, the personal networks of mobile people are therefore more individualized, less overlapping and more sparsely knit than the personal networks of non-mobile people (Larsen et al., 2006, Urry, 2003, Wellman, 2002, Wittel, 2001; see also the definition of “liberated community” by Wellman et al., 1988).

The fragmentation hypothesis is interesting because it suggests a series of important interrelational consequences in a mobile world. To begin, individuals in these fragmented networks are less restricted in terms of their behavior than those in networks, which are characterized by the collective nature of normative control: if a network member fails to conform to the network's norms, everybody knows everybody else well, and all of its members may react jointly (Coleman, 1988, Coleman, 1990, Milardo, 1988). Taking advantage of the greater autonomy, individuals in fragmented networks can take advantage of intersecting social circles (Simmel, 1999), potentially leading to the production of forms of geographical multiple membership. With this relatively new form of social integration – specific to modern societies –, individuals can develop an original identity based on a confluence of physically distant, relatively disconnected influences (see e.g. Fischer, 1975, Kadushin, 1966). Secondly, these individuals can also benefit from their position as compulsory intermediary between their network members (Burt, 1992), meaning they can broker or mediate between people who are not directly linked, using “tertius gaudens” strategies (i.e. exploit those disconnected parties to their benefit). Thirdly, social ties within fragmented networks are more likely to bridge new clusters and, as such, non-redundant, non-local resources (Granovetter, 1973). A fourth consequence, however, is that these individuals are less likely to benefit from collective mutual support. Unlike densely knit networks, where trust, obligations and mutual aid are reinforced by collective constraints and direct links, members of fragmented networks are less apt to coordinate their efforts when it comes to helping other network members. In such cases, the individual cannot benefit from collective solidarity practices and must deal with each tie separately (Wellman and Frank, 2000). Lastly, fragmented networks also hamper communications by reducing the number of information channels and multiplying the number of intermediaries between any two network members (Baker, 1984).

Although social network analysts have long investigated the impact of geographical distance on interpersonal ties (for pioneering work, see i.e. Fischer, 1982, Wellman and Leighton, 1979, Wellman, 1990, Wellman and Wortley, 1990), large-scale surveys linking the geography and structure of social networks and mobility are still limited. Empirical studies have, thus far, largely focused on specific professional categories characterized by a strong propensity for movement (migrants, highly qualified professions, long-distance commuters). As such, a systematic overview of representative data is missing. This article aims to fill this gap by examining the fragmentation hypothesis using survey data on personal networks in Switzerland. We began by assessing the influence of individuals’ social characteristics, network composition and residential mobility on the spatial dispersion of networks. We then investigated the effects of this dispersion and of living far from one's birthplace on the number and structure of support ties.