Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Space-time constraints on the location of social networks Kwan, Josephine 1978

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1978_A8 K95.pdf [ 8.23MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0094341.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0094341-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0094341-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0094341-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0094341-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0094341-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0094341-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0094341-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0094341.ris

Full Text

SPACE-TIME CONSTRAINTS ON THE LOCATION OF SOCIAL NETWORKS by Josephine K»an B.A. U n i v e r s i t y of the South P a c i f i c , 1972 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n O L THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (ANTHROPOLOGY AND SOCIOLOGY) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the r e g u i r e d standard. The U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia March 1978 @ J o s e p h i n e Kwan* 1978 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of Brit ish Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my writ ten pe rm i ss ion . Department of A n t h r o p o l o g y and S o c i o l o g y The University of Brit ish Columbia 2075 W e s b r o o k P l a c e V a n c o u v e r , C a n a d a V6T 1W5 D a t e Augustl-20, 1978 ( i i ) A B S T R A C T The purpose of t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n i s to examine the s p a t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s on the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s . The l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s i s then compared to t h a t o f r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. Two p r o p o s i t i o n s are g e n e r a l l y c o n s i d e r e d important f o r f r i e n d s h i p - - t h e e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e and the importance o f s i m i l a r i t y . Research has shown that people tend to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . T h i s t h e s i s argues t h a t one of the c e n t r a l determinants of the d i s t a n c e at which r e l a t i o n s h i p s are maintained i s temporal c o n s t r a i n t s . I t i s suqgested that the precedence of n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g the d a i l y and weekly c y c l e generates pressures f a v o u r i n g journeys over short d i s t a n c e s . I t was t h e r e f o r e hypothesized that the p r o p o r t i o n of • o t h e r s 1 contacted would i n c r e a s e with decreases i n the d i s t a n c e at which they were l o c a t e d . The second hypothesis i s d e r i v e d from the assumption that the r o l e of d i s t a n c e as a c o n s t r a i n t on i n t e r a c t i o n v a r i e s depending upon the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p . Because f r i e n d s h i p s are based on c h oice and t h e i r maintenance depend upon p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , l i m i t e d l e i s u r e time i n the d a i l y and weekly c y c l e generate pressures f a v o u r i n g the establishment of f r i e n d s h i p s closeby. I t was hypothesized t h a t f r i e n d s would be l o c a t e d c l o s e r than r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. ( i i i ) Since s i m i l a r i t y i s an important p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r f r i e n d s h i p , the time-cost i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e f o r the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s i s modified by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p . The theory s t i p u l a t e s t h a t i t i s not j u s t d i s t a n c e , but a l s o the d i s t r i b u t i o n of opportunty f o r f r i e n d s h i p , which determines the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are maintained. T h i s argument was then used t o hypothesize the the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s are maintained between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The f i n d i n g s showed that the p r o p o r t i o n of ' o t h e r s ' contacted i n a week i n c r e a s e d with decreasing d i s t a n c e f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. D i s t a n c e exerted l e s s of an e f f e c t on the p r o p o r t i o n of f r i e n d s c ontacted. Comparisons between l o c a t i o n of networks showed that f r i e n d s were l o c a t e d c l o s e s t followed by r e l a t i v e s and then co-workers. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e f o r each r e l a t i o n s h i p type d i d not vary by socioeconomic s t a t u s , as p r e d i c t e d i n the theory. However, th e r e were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type by socioeconomic s t a t u s . (iv) TABLE OF CONTENTS page LIST OF TABLES ••••••*•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••*•» {VI) LIST OF FIGURES ...................................... (IX) CHAPTER 1 In t roduct ion .......................... ^............ 1 T h e o r e t i c a l Framework and a Summary of the L i t e r a t u r e . 4 Di s t ance ....••».......•................*...... 4 Homogeneity ................................. 13 R e s i d e n t i a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : S p a t i a l P a t t e r n i n g o f the C i t y ...................... 15 S o c i a l Opportunity S t r u c t u r e ................ 17 Summary ....................................... 23 CHAPTER 2 Method ............................................... 25 The Data: Sampling Procedures ................. 26 O p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the Concepts ............ 32 The S t a t i s t i c a l Models ........................ 47 Summary ....................................... 52 CHAPTER 3 S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s 54 E f f e c t s of Distance on P r o p o r t i o n Contacted ... 54 Dependence o f Distance on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ... 62 Dependence of Distance on S o c i a l C l a s s f o r F r i e n d s ............ .... ..................... . 66 (v) TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) CHAPTER page Dependence of Distance on S o c i a l C l a s s f o r R e l a t i v e s . 75 flore Complex R e l a t i o n s h i p s 81 E f f e c t s of S o c i a l C l a s s on Type of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n the Network ................... 94 Summary and I n t e r p r e t a t i o n ....................110 CHAPTER 4 Conclusion ...................................... 112 P r i n c i p a l F i n d i n g s ............................ 113 I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Findings f o r P l a n n i n g ......... 114 L i m i t a t i o n s of Study .......................... 117 Suggestions f o r Further Research 120 B i b l i o g r a p h y ... 122 S t a t i s t i c a l Appendix 131 Appendix A ........................................... 14 2 Appendix B 150 (vi) L i s t o f Tables TABLE page 1 The Number of People i n the Sample by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type 30 2 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Occupation by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type Dncollapsed ................ 34 3 Dependence of Distan c e on O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s f o r R e l a t i v e s with M u l t i - s t r a n d e d R e l a t i o n s h i p s Included ....................... 36 4 Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l Status f o r R e l a t i v e s with M u l t i - s t r a n d e d R e l a t i o n s h i p s Removed ........................ 37 5 Dependence of Distance(transformed) on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ............................ 40 6 Dependence of Distance (untransf ormed) on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type 41 7 Freguency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Occupation by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ............................ 50 8 E f f e c t s o f O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type as Measured by the Matrix of c*ijt Values .................. 51 9 E f f e c t o f Distance on P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others' Contacted i n a Week .......................... 56 10 P r o p o r t i o n o f 'Others' Contacted by Distance f o r R e l a t i v e s , 57 11 P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others' Contacted by Distance f o r F r i ends .................................. 58 12 P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others' Contacted by Distan c e f o r Co-workers ............................... 59 13 Dependence of Distance on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type .. 63 14 Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s , f o r Friends 68 15 Dependence of Distance on Income f o r F r i e n d s . 70 ( v i i ) LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE page 16 Dependence o f Distance on Education f o r ; F r i e n d s 73 17 Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s f o r R e l a t i v e s ................................ 75 18 Dependence of Distance on Education f o r R e l a t i v e s .................................... 76 19 Dependence of Distance on Income f o r R e l a t i v e s .................................... 77 20 Summary ANOVA of the E f f e c t s o f Oc c u p a t i o n a l Status and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance ..................... 83 21 E f f e c t s of O c c u p a t i o n a l Status and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance ............ ......................... 85 22 Summary ANOV1 o f t h e E f f e c t s of Income and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance .................. ................... 87 23 E f f e c t s of Income and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of D i s t a n c e ................. 88 24 Comparing Mean Income E f f e c t s With and Without C o n t r o l l i n g f o r Type of R e l a t i o n s h i p . 90 25 Summary ANOVA of the E f f e c t s of Education and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance ..................................... 91 26 E f f e c t s of Education and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D i s t a n c e ................. 93 27 E f f e c t of Oc c u p a t i o n a l Status on Type of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n the Network .................. 96 28 Comparing Odds o f Having Relatives/Co-workers and Friends/Co-workers i n the Network f o r each O c c u p a t i o n a l Group ...................... 98 ( v i i i ) LIST OF TABLES (continued) TABLE Page 29 E f f e c t o f Income on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ...........,.................. 100 30 E f f e c t o f Education on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ............................ 101 31 Comparison o f Models with Occupation and Income as Independent V a r i a b l e s .............. 102 32 E f f e c t s of Occupation and Income on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ............ 103 33 Comparison o f Models with Occupation and Education as Independent V a r i a b l e s ........... 106 34 E f f e c t s of occupation and Education on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type ............ 107 (ix) LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE page 1 Sampling Typology Used to C o n t r o l the Macro-demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the R e s i d e n t i a l Areas Chosen i n Stage one ........ 28 2 S t r e e t Layout of the West End o f Vancouver 39 3 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type f o r the Distance V a r i a b l e Transformed ........ 43 4 D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Distance f o r F r i e n d s P l o t t e d Using the Mean Squared Against Histograms of the Distance V a r i a b l e Untransformed to Show Goodness of F i t 44 5 P r o p o r t i o n Contacted by Distance by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type 61 6 D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Income Groups Varying About a Common Mean ................................ 71 7 D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Groups Shoving the Mean and the D i s t r i b u t i o n S h i f t i n g Along the x - a x i s .................... 74 (X) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e t o thank a l l the members of my committee--Drs. George Gray, James Lindsey and M a r t i n M e i s s n e r - - f o r the encouragement and c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c i s m s they o f f e r r e d i n the w r i t i n g of t h i s t h e s i s . S p e c i a l thanks must go to my s u p e r v i s o r . Dr. George Gray, f o r permissi o n to use the Vancouver Urban Stud i e s P r o j e c t Data and f o r h i s comments on su c c e s s i v e d r a f t s of t h i s t h e s i s . S p e c i a l thanks are a l s o i extended to Dr. James Lindsey f o r h i s support throughout the w r i t i n g of t h i s t h e s i s and f o r the use of h i s computing programs. His comments and c r i t i c i s m s on the a n a l y s i s s e c t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s were i n v a l u a b l e . I l e a r n t much about the use of s t a t i s t i c s under h i s t u t e l a g e . My thanks a l s o go t o Dr. Reginald Robson f o r h i s h e l p f u l comments. 1 CHAPTER 1 INTSODOCTION Two views of urban c o n t a c t p a t t e r n s have been s t r e s s e d by urban s c h o l a r s . The e a r l y view, p r e v a l e n t i n the e a r l y twentieth century, lamented the d e c l i n e i n primary r e l a t i o n s h i p s . A second view, which i s now dominant, admits t o the p e r v a s i v e n e s s o f segmental r o l e s i n c o n t r a s t to primary r e l a t i o n s h i p s , but suggests t h a t u r b a n i t e s p a r t i c i p a t e i n a g r e a t e r amount o f i n f o r m a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n than has h i t h e r t o been considered. Most u r b a n i t e s are i n v o l v e d i n a web of a f f i l i a t i o n s extending from the church t o c l u b s and other v o l u n t a r y and i n v o l u n t a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s (Chapin, 1974). In a d d i t i o n each i n d i v i d u a l i s a member of a s e r i e s of networks 1 i n v o l v i n g f a m i l y , f r i e n d s , neighbours, co-workers and other acquaintances. These t i e s are d i s p e r s e d i n space, being l o c a t e d i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the c i t y , sometimes i n other c i t i e s and o c c a s i o n a l l y i n VBott (1957) maintains t h a t the term network r e f e r s to a set of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s - - t h e main concern being t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l has r e l a t i o n s h i p s with a number of people r a t h e r than the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between t h i s number of people. For t h i s study, a l l persons l i s t e d by the respondent as r e l a t i v e , f r i e n d , neighbour, co-worker or any combination of these c a t e g o r i e s and who were seen or v i s i t e d i n the s i x months before the i n t e r v i e w w i l l be c o n s i d e r e d as members o f the respondent's network. 2 other c o u n t r i e s . Although i t has been r e c o g n i z e d that i n d i v i d u a l behaviour i s c o n s t r a i n e d by the l i m i t a t i o n s s e t by the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l environment (Beshers, 1962; Hagerstrand, 1969; 1970}, t h e r e has been r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e r e s e a r c h r e l a t i n g these s o c i a l and s p a t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s t o the s t r u c t u r e of complex t i e s w i t h i n the c i t y . The focus of t h i s r e s e a r c h w i l l be on the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e o f what s o c i o l o g i s t s have d e f i n e d as i n f o r m a l s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Informal r e l a t i o n s h i p s r e f e r to i n t e r p e r s o n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are not d e f i n e d by e x p l i c i t r u l e s and segmented r o l e s which p r e s c r i b e behaviour. These r e l a t i o n s h i p s are p e r i o d i c and person s p e c i f i c . R e l a t i o n s h i p s with f r i e n d s , neighbours, co-workers and r e l a t i v e s are u s u a l l y l a b e l l e d as i n f o r m a l s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s and are c h a r a c t e r i s e d by the wide l a t i t u d e of a p p r o p r i a t e behaviour., T h i s d i s t i n g u i s h e s them, on the one hand, from formal s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s where behaviour i s d e f i n e d by e x p l i c i t r u l e s and r o l e a s s i g n a t i o n s ( G i s t and H a l b e r t , 1961), and on the other, from r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are s p e c i f i c t o a s e t of r o l e s , such as c u s t o m e r - c l e r k , r i d e r - t a x i d r i v e r and those which are l e s s p e r i o d i c with l e s s l a t i t u d e o f behaviour. Although s t u d i e s i n geography have focused on the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on the p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n t a c t and t h e r e f o r e f r i e n d s h i p , the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on the maintenance of such r e l a t i o n s h i p s tend to be i g n o r e d . Such c o n s i d e r a t i o n s would u s u a l l y i n v o l v e i n c o r p o r a t i n g the temporal dimensions of space; the extent to which time c o n s t r a i n s t r a v e l and determines the d i s t a n c e a t which a c t i v i t i e s occur. There i s a l s o r e l a t i v e l y 3 l i t t l e r e s e a r c h which r e l a t e s the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e of the c i t y , or the d i s t a n c e between d w e l l i n g s , to the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s . Research on the journey t o work has e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t workers tend to r e s i d e i n p l a c e s p r o v i d i n g easy access to the work place (Wheeler, 1969). l i t t l e has been done on the way d i s t a n c e between d w e l l i n g s a f f e c t k i n s h i p t i e s . However, i t has been found t h a t , with r e l a t i v e s , i t i s the s t r e n g t h of the r e l a t i o n s h i p r a t h e r than d i s t a n c e which a f f e c t s i t s maintenance. i I t may even be argued t h a t the s t r o n g e r the r e l a t i o n s h i p , the l e s s l i k e l y that one would l o c a t e a t a d i s t a n c e beyond which the r e l a t i o n s h i p cannot be maintained. I t i s only with f r i e n d s that the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e i s undefined. T h i s t h e s i s w i l l t h e r e f o r e focus on the urban c o n t a c t p a t t e r n of the p a r t i c u l a r r e l a t i o n s h i p of f r i e n d . , Four hypotheses are t e s t e d — t h e f i r s t examines the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on c o n t a c t f o r d i f f e r e n t types of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the second compares the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s f r i e n d s to that f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers and t h e t h i r d and, f o u r t h deal with the e f f e c t s of socioeconomic s t a t u s on the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s and r e l a t i v e s r e s p e c t i v e l y . z 2The data a n a l y s i s deals only with the, married males i n the sample. 4 T h e o r e t i c a l Framework an d a Summary of the L i t e r a t u r e The development of f r i e n d s h i p s presumes p r i o r c o n t a c t and r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n . The maintenance of f r i e n d s h i p s r e q u i r e s some k i n d o f r e p e t i t i v e reinforcement. One way of ensuring t h i s r einforcement i s through r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n , i n t e r a c t i o n which u s u a l l y i n v o l v e s people r e g u l a r l y g e t t i n g together i n time and space. Although i n d i v i d u a l s are sometimes able to provide t h i s reinforcement through t h e phone and through l e t t e r s , t h i s t h e s i s focuses on r e l a t i o n s h i p s which are maintained, to a l a r g e e x t e n t , through f a c e - t o - f a c e i n t e r a c t i o n i n the d w e l l i n g u n i t of one of p a r t i c i p a n t s . Distance Distance a f f e c t s the l i k e l i h o o d o f people e s t a b l i s h i n g and maintaining s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s ( F e s t i n g e r et a l . , 1950; Athanasiou and l o s h i o k a , 1973; Carey and Hapes, 1974). The p r o p o s i t i o n concerning the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e , the p r o b a b i l i t y o f cont a c t and f r i e n d s h i p i s supported by f i n d i n g s i n s e v e r a l housing and neighbourhood s t u d i e s . F e s t i n g e r e t a l . (1950) found t h a t both, the d i s t a n c e between r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s as well as the p o s i t i o n i n g of these u n i t s v i s - a - v i s each o t h e r , had important consequences f o r f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s . The u n i t s of study were (1) Hestgate which was made up of s i n g l e f a m i l y and detached houses grouped around an ordered s e r i e s of court y a r d s and (2) Hestgate Best which had p r e v i o u s l y served as wartime barracks and was converted to provide f i v e apartments on each of the two f l o o r s w i t h i n each b u i l d i n g . In Hestgate, 5 d i s t a n c e s e p a r a t i n g the f r o n t doors of each house was most i n f l u e n t i a l i n a f f e c t i n g c h o i c e p a t t e r n s . The m a j o r i t y of the respondents reported t h a t t h e i r best f r i e n d s l i v e d next door. In Westgate, the l o c a t i o n of u n i t s about the r e s i d e n t i a l c o u r t a l s o had an e f f e c t on f r i e n d s h i p p a t t e r n s . I n d i v i d u a l s were more l i k e l y to f i n d f r i e n d s w i t h i n the same c o u r t ; and w i t h i n each court they made f r i e n d s with those l i v i n g c l o s e s t . In Westgate West, the concept o f f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e was c o n c e p t u a l i z e d t o e x p l a i n f r i e n d s h i p . T h i s concept encompasses those f e a t u r e s of l o c a t i o n and design which are man-made and which b r i n g i n d i v i d u a l s i n t o c o n t a c t . F e s t i n g e r et a l . (1950) suggest that f u n c t i o n a l d i s t a n c e with i t s a s s o c i a t e d p a t t e r n i n g of movement i n f l u e n c e s the l i k e l i h o o d of p a s s i v e c o n t a c t s , which, i f they occur r e g u l a r l y enough, develop i n t o a nodding acquaintanceship and, i f p s y c h o l o g i c a l f a c t o r s are r i g h t , i n t o f r i e n d s h i p . For example, r e s i d e n t s of the second f l o o r c o u l d e x i t v i a a stairway on e i t h e r end of the b u i l d i n g . T h i s meant that they f r e q u e n t l y came i n t o c o n t a c t with c e r t a i n occupants o f the f i r s t f l o o r . I t was found t h a t the p o s i t i o n of the s t a i r w a y had a s i g n i f i c a n t e f f e c t on the p a t t e r n i n g of f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h i n one f l o o r and between f l o o r s . These f i n d i n g s l e d the authors t o p o s t u l a t e t h a t : The c l o s e r together a number o f people l i v e and the greater the extent t o which f u n c t i o n a l p r o x i m i t y f a c t o r s cause c o n t a c t s among these people, the g r e a t e r the p r o b a b i l i t y of group formation ( F e s t i n g e r et a l . , 1950: 161) . 1 ' • These f i n d i n g s were s i m i l a r to s e v e r a l other neighbourhood s t u d i e s . I n a r e c e n t study, ftthanasiou and Yoshioka (1973) reported t h a t of next door neighbours, 46.1% were chosen as high 6 i n t e n s i t y f r i e n d s {who saw each other everyday and enjoyed each other's company), i n comparison t o 23.9% of those two doors away and 12.6% of those three or f o u r doors away. Carey and Mapes (1973), i n t h e i r study of seven housing e s t a t e s i n England, found the same i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e and the l i k e l i h o o d o f v i s i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s developing between the r e s i d e n t s . Most r e s e a r c h e r s i n t e r e s t e d i n the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e have concentrated on i t s e f f e c t s w i t h i n neighbourhoods., The importance of d i s t a n c e i n e f f e c t i n g probable c o n t a c t and t h e r e f o r e f r i e n d s h i p has been e s t a b l i s h e d ( F e s t i n g e r et a l , , 1950 ; Athanasiou and Yoshioka, 1974; Carey and Mapes, 1973). However, these r e s e a r c h e r s do not d i s t i n g u i s h between d i s t a n c e as i t a f f e c t s the p r o b a b i l i t y o f contact and the f r i e n d s h i p process, and d i s t a n c e as i t a f f e c t s the maintenance of a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . These i s s u e s are probably l e s s e a s i l y r e c o g n i z a b l e w i t h i n neighbourhoods because people l i v i n g near each other not only meet e a s i l y ; they a l s o share s i m i l a r pathways and a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n s which enhances s o c i a b i l i t y . , . For example, i t i s r e l a t i v e l y easy f o r i n d i v i d u a l s who l i v e next to each other to chat with each other across the fence while engaging i n some oth e r a c t i v i t y such as gardening. Within neighbourhoods, d i s t a n c e not only a f f e c t s i n i t i a l c o n t a c t but c o n t r i b u t e s to the maintenance of a r e l a t i o n s h i p . I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g t h e r e f o r e , t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s d i s c u s s the e f f e c t s of di s t a n c e without d i s c u s s i n g i t s two components. flhen d i s t a n c e i s extended t o r e l a t i o n s h i p s o u t s i d e the neighbourhood, i t no longer operates i n the same way i n 7 f a c i l i t a t i n g c o n t a c t and m a i n t a i n i n g f r i e n d s h i p s . I n s t e a d , i f two i n d i v i d u a l s wish to maintain a r e l a t i o n s h i p , e i t h e r one or both of the p a r t i c i p a n t s must t r a v e l over d i s t a n c e i n order t o engage i n r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n , whether i t be a t each o t h e r ' s homes or a t some a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n . In order t o do t h i s , an i n d i v i d u a l must have time s e t a s i d e s p e c i f i c a l l y f o r t r a v e l to an a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n as w e l l as the time r e q u i r e d to engage i n the d e s i r e d s o c i a l a c t i v i t y . In t h i s way the maintenance o f such r e l a t i o n s h i p s takes on temporal i m p l i c a t i o n s . The d i s t a n c e t h a t one may t r a v e l i n a given time i s u s u a l l y c o n t i n g e n t upon the speed and e f f i c i e n c y of e x i s t i n g t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f a c i l i t i e s . I nnovations i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n and communication reduces the cost of overcoming d i s t a n c e . The ownership of the p r i v a t e automobile and p u b l i c support f o r e f f i c i e n t t r a n s i t has seen the r a p i d e x t e n s i o n through space of human a c t i v i t i e s . Thus g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s can be t r a v e l l e d w i t h i n the same amount o f time. The e l e c t r i c r a i l w a y , the buses and f i n a l l y , the wide d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r i v a t e automobiles, s u c c e s s i v e l y changed the meaning of space wit h i n the c i t y and always i n the d i r e c t i o n of greater c o n t r o l over space w i t h i n the same period of time {Greer, 1962:61). Hence, i t i s not simply d i s t a n c e which i s i n v o l v e d i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n but a l s o , the time i t takes to go from p o i n t ft to p o i n t B. Innovations i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n may, on the one hand, i n c r e a s e the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d i n the same amount of time, or i t may decrease the time to t r a v e l a given d i s t a n c e {Hawley, 1950; Gans, 1962; Hagerstrand, 1970). A t h i r d c o n s i d e r a t i o n i n t r a v e l w i t h i n the c i t y i s the time a v a i l a b l e f o r t r a v e l . The s e p a r a t i o n of work place from 8 r e s i d e n c e , t y p i f i e d by s u b u r b a n i z a t i o n i n North America, was not brought about alone by the use of the p r i v a t e automobile, but a l s o i n v o l v e d a s u b s t a n t i a l d e c l i n e i n the l e n g t h of the work day, f r e e i n g more time f o r t r a v e l . In order t h e r e f o r e , t o analyse the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e and urban contact p a t t e r n s , i t i s necessary to view d i s t a n c e i n r e l a t i o n to i t s temporal dimension. Hawley (1950) s t a t e s t h a t the l i m i t a t i o n s o f space make l i t t l e sense without the simultaneous c o n s i d e r a t i o n of the flow of time, and t h a t the two can only be separated i n a b s t r a c t i o n . I f a c t i v i t i e s are separated i n space, to go from one a c t i v i t y t o another i n v o l v e s t r a v e r s i n g s p a c e - - t r a v e r s i n g space consumes time. The time consumed i n t r a v e l l i n g t o the a c t i v i t y (and most cases t r a v e l l i n g from the a c t i v i t y ) g e t s added to the time i n v o l v e d i n the a c t i v i t y as part of the t o t a l time cost of the a c t i v i t y . Thus, i n l o o k i n g a t the amount of time a v a i l a b l e f o r s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s , one must examine the o r g a n i z a t i o n of a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the time c y c l e of a day or week. A c t i v i t i e s can be d i v i d e d i n t o d i s c r e t i o n a r y and non-d i s c r e t i o n a r y major c a t e g o r i e s . D i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s r e f e r to d a i l y r o u t i n e s over which people have l i t t l e day t o day c o n t r o l or c h o i c e f o r performance. The d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s i n the l i f e of an i n d i v i d u a l i s "pegged" around these key s t r u c t u r i n g > episodes of work, s l e e p and a t t e n t i o n to p e r s o n a l hygiene (Hoore, 1963; Hagerstrand, 1970; Chapin, 1974). The time b l o c k s a l l o c a t e d t o the n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s then s e t s the c o n s t r a i n t s f o r the s c h e d u l i n g o f d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s . For example, with some e x c e p t i o n s . 9 paid work i s scheduled t o occur between e i g h t or nine o» c l o c k i n the morning t o be completed between U or 5 o* c l o c k i n the afternoon. Therefore any l e i s u r e a c t i v i t y must be scheduled to occur between the times when an i n d i v i d u a l a r r i v e s home t o recuperate from the f a t i g u e of the day and partake of h i s / h e r evening meal to the time when an i n d i v i d u a l r e t i r e s to bed, awakening a t dawn to repeat the c y c l e of e f f o r t , f a t i g u e , r e l a x a t i o n and s l e e p again. Where chores are scheduled t o occur at a c e r t a i n place w i t h i n a s p e c i f i e d time, t h e r e e x i s t s d e f i n i t e boundaries beyond which an i n d i v i d u a l cannot go i f he or she has t o r e t u r n before the d e a d l i n e (Hagerstrand, 1970). The c o n s t r a i n t s on time imposed by n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t y r e f e r t o the f i v e day week. These f i v e days are followed by the weekend (from Saturday to Sunday) duri n g which paid work stops. During the weekend there i s a s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n the amount of time spent i n out of home a c t i v i t y . With the swing away from work duri n g weekends, f a m i l i e s have much more time t o devote to d i s c r e t i o n a r y and l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s such as b o a t i n g , p i c n i c k i n g and gardening (Seeley, Sim and Looseley, 1956). A f t e r time has been a l l o c a t e d to the major non-d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s , one i s l e f t with time over which one e x e r c i s e s g r e a t e r c o n t r o l . The i n d i v i d u a l has a wide range of choice with regard to the a c t i v i t y engaged i n and the a l l o c a t i o n of time to t h a t a c t i v i t y . However, i f one must t r a v e l to a l o c a t i o n i n order t o engage i n an a c t i v i t y , then a v a i l a b l e time o f t e n f o r c e s c h o i c e s to be made between people with whom one can engage i n an a c t i v i t y . For example, an i n d i v i d u a l may have a 10 two hour time block at hand. In d e c i d i n g whom he s h a l l v i s i t , an i n d i v i d u a l must account f o r t r a v e l time as w e l l as the time r e g u i r e d f o r the v i s i t i n g episode. I f t r a v e l t o and from a l o c a t i o n exceeds t o t a l time a l l o c a t e d , or l e a v e s l i t t l e f o r the a c t i v i t y episode, a n e a r e r l o c a t i o n may be chosen. ; A v a i l a b l e time t h e r e f o r e s e t s l i m i t s t o d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d . . Because of the precedence of n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s d uring the d a i l y and weekly c y c l e s , i t may be argued t h a t d i s t a n t journeys are l e s s freguent than shor t ones. On weekdays when a s u b s t a n t i a l p o r t i o n of f r e e time i s t i e d up with t r a v e l t o and from work, i t i s u n l i k e l y t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l w i l l undertake another d i s t a n t journey i n order to engage i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . There i s the e f f i c i e n c y argument which suggests that i f t r a v e l r e p r e s e n t s time, money and energy c o s t s , then an i n d i v i d u a l undertaking a long journey may want t o t r a d e these c o s t s by spending a g r e a t e r amount of time at the d e s t i n a t i o n . As the amount of time one may spend at an a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n i s l i m i t e d i n the d a i l y and weekly time c y c l e , one may argue t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l chooses a c l o s e r l o c a t i o n more o f t e n . T h e r e f o r e , i f an i n d i v i d u a l has r e l a t i o n s h i p s e s t a b l i s h e d c l o s e b y as well as a t g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s , the ones l o c a t e d w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s have a higher p r o b a b i l i t y of being contacted. T h i s can be s t a t e d as a h y p othesis to be t e s t e d . Hypothesis 1 The p r o p o r t i o n of 'others* i n the network c o n t a c t e d i n a week i n c r e a s e s with decreases i n the d i s t a n c e at which they are l o c a t e d . The d i s t a n c e t h a t one may t r a v e l i n order to v i s i t o f t e n v a r i e s depending on the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n s i d e r e d . 11 Distance r e p r e s e n t s time c o s t s so that the g r e a t e r the d i s t a n c e , the greater the c o s t (Terence, 1970; Cox, 1959)., A s s o c i a t e d with the c o s t s are the b e n e f i t s i n v o l v e d with undertaking a journey or a c t i v i t y . H h i l e i t may be c o s t l y ( i n terms of t r a v e l time) t o v i s i t a d i s t a n t f r i e n d , these c o s t s are o f f s e t i f the emotional s a t i s f a c t i o n i s p e r c e i v e d t o outweigh the c o s t s . The c o s t - b e n e f i t argument may be used t o examine the s p a t i a l l o c a t i o n of v a r i o u s r e l a t i o n s h i p types. Litwak and S z e l e n y i (1969) suggest t h a t v a r i o u s types o f i n f o r m a l s o c i a l groups have evolved i n the urban s e t t i n g because, with the d i s p e r s i o n o f k i n , f a m i l i e s have had t o t u r n to a l t e r n a t i v e groups f o r the b e n e f i t s which they can o f f e r . The d i s t a n c e that one t r a v e l s i n order to maintain these r e l a t i o n s h i p s then r e f l e c t s , t o a degree, the k i n d of b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d through a s s o c i a t i o n . For example, r e l a t i v e s may be depended upon to provide a i d i n major c r i s e s and l i f e c y c l e events, neighbours f o r o r d i n a r y everyday emergencies, f r i e n d s (and to some e x t e n t , co-workers) f o r emotional support. F r i e n d s h i p s d i f f e r from k i n s h i p t i e s and t i e s between work a s s o c i a t e s i n t h a t they are based on c h o i c e . Being d i s c r e t i o n a r y , i t may be i n f e r r e d that f r i e n d s h i p s are s e n s i t i v e to the r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n and reinforcement without which the f r i e n d s h i p changes. I t may t h e r e f o r e be i n f e r r e d t h a t the d i s t a n c e between f r i e n d s tends to be small i n order to encourage t h i s r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n . I f the t i m e - c o s t of m a i n t a i n i n g r e g u l a r c o n t a c t with f r i e n d s i s e x c e s s i v e , a d i s t a n t f r i e n d can be e a s i l y r e p l a c e d by one l i v i n g c l o s e b y . I t i s argued that the r e s i d e n t i a l d i s t a n c e between co-12 workers i s g r e a t e r than that f o r f r i e n d s . Research has a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t co-workers tend t o r e s i d e i n areas p r o v i d i n g easy access to the work p l a c e (Wheeler, 1969). Where co-workers r e s i d e would be d i c t a t e d by t h e i r socioeconomic s t a t u s and f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . As i n d i v i d u a l s are h i r e d f o r work on the b a s i s of t h e i r s k i l l s r a t h e r than on the b a s i s of t h e i r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , the work p l a c e i s more l i k e l y t o draw i n d i v i d u a l s from a wider area of the m e t r o p o l i s . / Work a s s o c i a t e s may t h e r e f o r e l i v e a t great d i s t a n c e s from each other. T h i s i s not l i k e l y t o a f f e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p s between co-workers because the work p l a c e provides an important o p p o r t u n i t y f o r i n d i v i d u a l s to engage i n common a c t i v i t i e s . Research has a l r e a d y e s t a b l i s h e d that r e l a t i v e s tend to be s p a t i a l l y d i s p e r s e d (Adams, 1969; Sussman, 1969). While k i n members r e s i d e d w i t h i n a common l o c a l e before i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n , t h i s t rend i s no longer encouraged or allowed by the s o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y i n h e r e n t i n urban l i v i n g . , Nuclear f a m i l i e s , l i k e other urban f a m i l i e s , tend t o r e l o c a t e i f b e t t e r job o p p o r t u n i t i e s become a v a i l a b l e at a d i f f e r e n t l o c a t i o n . Thus, g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s have to be t r a v e l l e d to maintain k i n s h i p t i e s . I t i s suggested t h a t f r i e n d s tend to be l o c a t e d c l o s e s t because f r i e n d s h i p s are based on c h o i c e and are t h e r e f o r e s e n s i t i v e to whether or not there i s i n t e r a c t i o n . With r e l a t i v e s and co-workers, d i s t a n c e between d w e l l i n g s i s not so c r u c i a l because other o p p o r t u n i t i e s , which o v e r r i d e the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e , provide f o r the maintenance of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s . The r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n o f these r e l a t i o n s h i p types can be s t a t e d 13 as a hypothesis t o be t e s t e d : HJE2£he_§is_ 2 The mean d i s t a n c e a t which the 'others* are l o c a t e d i s sm a l l e r f o r f r i e n d s than f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. Homogeneity Besides being d i s c r e t i o n a r y , another important f e a t u r e o f f r i e n d s h i p i s the degree of homogeneity between i n d i v i d u a l s (Gans, 1962; Carey and Mapes, 1973; Athanasiou and Yoshioka, 1973). Homogeneity r e f e r s t o the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between i n d i v i d u a l s . S t u d i e s of the f r i e n d s h i p process have s t r e s s e d the importance of common va l u e s , a t t i t u d e s and i n t e r e s t s between the i n t e r a c t i n g i n d i v i d u a l s . S o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r i e s o f i n t e r a c t i o n have t r i e d to e x p l a i n f r i e n d s h i p s i n terms of the l i k i n g element t h a t i n c o r p o r a t e s f e e l i n g s o f p o s i t i v e sentiment and a t t r a c t i o n . These t h e o r i e s have t r i e d to e s t a b l i s h the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l i k i n g element and the s h a r i n g o f common values, i n t e r e s t s and a t t i t u d e s (Homans, 1950; Newcombe, 1961). Some degree of commonality i s assumed to be an important f e a t u r e of any i n t i m a t e or c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p because i t provid e s some measure of whether o r not i n d i v i d u a l s are compatible. I t a l s o e s t a b l i s h e s a b a s i s f o r r e c i p r o c i t y and exchange which i s an important b a s i s of f r i e n d s h i p . Such a t t r i b u t e s as socioeconomic s t a t u s , o c c u p a t i o n , sex, age and f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e stage provide important i n d i c a t o r s f o r gauging s i m i l a r a t t i t u d e s , b e l i e f s and behaviour. Newcombe (1956:577) s t a t e s : 14 ...the possession of s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s predisposes i n d i v i d u a l s to be a t t r a c t e d to each other t o the degree that those c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are both observable and valued by those who observe them, i n s h o r t i n so f a r as they provide a b a s i s f o r s i m i l a r i t y of a t t i t u d e s . An important h y p o t h e s i s t h a t i s o f t e n t e s t e d i s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s tend t o choose ( f o r i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s ) others who are s o c i a l l y s i m i l a r to themselves i n many socioeconomic r e s p e c t s (Laumann, 1973; Wheeler and S t u t z , 1972)., T h i s i s based on the assumption that "persons o f s i m i l a r socioeconomic s t a t u s share many values and problems and expe r i e n c e s that p r o v i d e a b a s i s of common i n t e r e s t " {Laumann, 1973:5). However the degree of s i m i l a r i t y between the i n d i v i d u a l and the •others' i n h i s / h e r network i s l i k e l y t o vary depending upon the type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p . Because f r i e n d s h i p s are d i s c r e t i o n a r y , being based on f r e e c h o ice and a f f e c t i v i t y , one may i n f e r t h a t s i m i l a r i t y i s l i k e l y to be most important i n f r i e n d s h i p s . While one e x e r c i s e s a g r e a t degree of ch o i c e i n who becomes one's f r i e n d s , one has no ch o i c e over one's r e l a t i v e s except i n whether one a c t i v e l y maintains these t i e s or allows them t o l i e dormant u n t i l an a p p r o p r i a t e time. Commonality may t h e r e f o r e be l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t between r e l a t i v e s where emotional bonds d e f i n e the maintenance of the r e l a t i o n s h i p . The q u e s t i o n of s i m i l a r i t y between co-workers must take i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n the s i z e o f the work o r g a n i z a t i o n , i t s d i v i s i o n of labour and where the worker i s placed w i t h i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n . I t may be argued that the degree of s i m i l a r i t y betweem co-workers i s of l e a s t concern to the o r g a n i z a t i o n which h i r e s them to perform some s p e c i f i c task based on a b i l i t y . The 15 degree o f s i m i l a r i t y between co-workers i s l i k e l y t o vary depending upon whether or not they v i s i t each other or engage i n common a c t i v i t i e s . The degree of s i m i l a r i t y between those s o c i a l i z i n g only at work i s l i k e l y to be l e s s than between those who v i s i t or engage i n common a c t i v i t i e s t o g e t h e r . S f r S i d e n t i a l D i f f e r e n t i a t i o n : S p a t i a l P a t t e r n i n g of the City. Thus f a r , two p r o p o s i t i o n s have been d i s c u s s e d i n r e l a t i o n to f r i e n d s h i p : the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e and the importance o f s i m i l a r i t y . Researchers have e s t a b l i s h e d t h a t people tend t o make f r i e n d s w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s . However, one of the c e n t r a l determinants of d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d f o r the maintenance of f r i e n d s h i p s i s temporal c o n s t r a i n t s (such as, be i n g on time f o r work, f o r dinner and so on) which, i n t u r n , determines the amount of time a v a i l a b l e f o r s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . I t i s suggested t h a t l i m i t e d l e i s u r e time, a r i s i n g from the gr e a t e r a l l o c a t i o n o f time t o the major n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s d u r i n g the d a i l y and weekly time c y c l e s , generate pressures f a v o u r i n g the est a b l i s h m e n t o f f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . Since s i m i l a r i t y i s a l s o an important p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r f r i e n d s h i p , i t i s suggested t h a t i t i s not j u s t the tim e - c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e but a l s o , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of oppor t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p which determines the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are maintained. T h i s s e c t i o n attempts t o l i n k d i s t a n c e and s i m i l a r i t y t o the s p a t i a l p a t t e r n i n g of the c i t y through r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t o d e s c r i b e the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s . , R e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n r e f e r s t o the tendency f o r 16 persons o f s i m i l a r o c c u p a t i o n s , e x p e c t a t i o n s and consumption pa t t e r n s t o l i v e near one another (Greer, 1962; Greer and Orleans, 1968; Nohara, 1968; Tomeh, 196 9) . within r e s i d e n t i a l areas one may i d e n t i f y e a s i l y the s k i d rows and the "nob h i l l s " . There i s a s t r u c t u r e to the way people and b u i l d i n g s are d i s t r i b u t e d i n the c i t y . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of people i n t o s m a l l organized groups i n t h e c i t y has o f t e n been represented as a "mosaic of s o c i a l worlds" (Louis Wirth, 1938) Th i s r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , or the s o r t i n g of people i n t o r e s i d e n t i a l areas with o t h e r s o f s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , has been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y noted and e x p l a i n e d by a large number of s t u d i e s (Howrer, 1958; Greer, 1962; Cans, 1962; Beshers, 1962; Nohara, 1968; Greer and Orl e a n s , 1968; Timms, 1969). The re l e v a n c e of s o c i a l rank ( s t a t u s , income and education) and of stage i n f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e i n e f f e c t i n g common demands f o r dw e l l i n g type and f o r a c c e s s i b i l i t y to d i f f e r e n t f a c i l i t i e s f o r p a r t i c u l a r segments o f the p o p u l a t i o n have been examined by these s t u d i e s . The r o l e of s i m i l a r demands i n a f f e c t i n g w i t h i n r e s i d e n t i a l area homogeneity and between area homogeneity i s we l l e s t a b l i s h e d f o r North American c i t i e s (Thornlinson, 1969; Jones, 1969), R e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n t h e r e f o r e r e f l e c t s the range of v o l u n t a r y and i n v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s of i n d i v i d u a l s seeking a r e s i d e n t i a l s i t e . One may be f o r c e d by circumstance t o r e s i d e i n a p a r t i c u l a r area because one may be d i s c r i m i n a t e d a g a i n s t , or one may be too poor t o a f f o r d a change i n r e s i d e n t i a l l o c a t i o n . On the other hand, i n d i v i d u a l s may choose to l i v e i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t e because of the perceived b e n e i f i t s a s s o c i a t e d 17 with the area. To the extent t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s f e e l d i s c o m f o r t when l i v i n g s i d e by s i d e with people of d i s s i m i l a r l i f e s t y l e s , they are l i k e l y to seek more compatible a r e a s i n which t o r e s i d e . In c o n c l u s i o n , i t may be s t a t e d t h a t r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , based on d i f f e r e n c e s i n income, occupation, socioeconomic s t a t u s and l i f e s t y l e , a r i s e s from a presumed preference f o r neighbours with s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and a presumed r e j e c t i o n of neighbours with d i s s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . R e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can t h e r e f o r e l e a d to a minimi z a t i o n of con t a c t between those who are d i s s i m i l a r and hence inc o m p a t i b l e , and can enhance co n t a c t between those who are s i m i l a r and c o m p a t i b l e . 3 S o c i a l Opportunity S t r u c t u r e B e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n can a f f e c t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n by a l l o w i n g s i m i l a r i n d i v i d u a l s more opp o r t u n i t y t o meet people l i k e themselves wi t h i n short d i s t a n c e s . / Si n c e p r i o r c o n t a c t i s necessary f o r f r i e n d s h i p , the development of a l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p depends on whether or not two i n d i v i d u a l s have met befor e . I f i n d i v i d u a l s i n the l o c a l area have important c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n common, they are a l s o more l i k e l y t o have common i n t e r e s t s . I f these i n t e r e s t s take them t o s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n s o u t s i d e the d w e l l i n g u n i t , they are more l i k e l y to meet. To t h e extent t h a t voluntary o r g a n i z a t i o n s . 3 I n t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n , neighbours a r e d e f i n e d i n terms of t h e i r s p a t i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p t o each other. I t t h e r e f o r e extends beyond the subblock, where neighbouring occurs (Gans, 1962), t o i n c l u d e the r e s i d e n t s of t h e l o c a l area d e f i n e d through r e s i d e n t i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n . , 18 nig h t c l a s s e s , r e c r e a t i o n a l and and other a c t i v i t i e s c e n t e r around a common i n t e r e s t , they w i l l f u n c t i o n as p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s from which i n d i v i d u a l s can gauge t h e i r c o m p a t i b i l i t y i n developing f r i e n d s h i p s . I t becomes apparent t h a t the l o c a t i o n of an a c t i v i t y (assuming these occur o u t s i d e the d w e l l i n g u n i t ) a l l o w s more opp o r t u n i t y t o meet someone s h a r i n g important s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and i n t e r e s t s . I f i n d i v i d u a l s engage i n a c t i v i t i e s i n l o c a t i o n s which exclude the members of the l o c a l area, they are l e s s l i k e l y to have f r i e n d s l o c a t e d i n the neighbourhood. Hagerstrand (1967) and Webber (1964) c i t e the example of the p r o f e s s i o n a l who meets and maintains f r i e n d s through work. I f these p r o f e s s i o n a l s t r a v e l widely as pa r t o f t h e i r work, then i t i s probable that the i n t e r e s t - b a s e d t i e s of these persons extend t o many parts of the c i t y , t o other c i t i e s and to other p a r t s of the world.. The number of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s i s a l s o a f f e c t e d by the frequency with which an i n d i v i d u a l meets p o t e n t i a l f r i e n d s through other f r i e n d s w i t h i n the l o c a l area. For example an i n d i v i d u a l may have f i v e f r i e n d s w i t h i n the l o c a l area., I t maybe t h a t each of the f i v e f r i e n d s a l s o has three f r i e n d s each w i t h i n the l o c a l area. I f the i n d i v i d u a l meets the t h r e e f r i e n d s of each o f h i s f i v e f r i e n d s , t h i s l e a d s t o an i n c r e a s e i n the number of p o t e n t i a l o t hers with whom the i n d i v i d u a l may e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s h i p . An i n c r e a s e i n the number of p o t e n t i a l others one meets i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e the number i n the subset who becomes f r i e n d s . T h e r e f o r e , the number of s o c i a l l y s i m i l a r o t hers w i t h i n 19 the l o c a l area d e f i n e s the opp o r t u n i t y f o r i n t e r a c t i o n . The number of s o c i a l l y s i m i l a r o t hers d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number o f people w i t h i n the l o c a l area r e f e r s to the d e n s i t y of oppor t u n i t y or the p r o p o r t i o n of p o t e n t i a l o t h e r s with whom one can be f r i e n d s . When the d e n s i t y of oppo r t u n i t y i s g r e a t , l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s are more l i k e l y as there i s a higher p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the po p u l a t i o n engage i n a c t i v i t i e s which b r i n g about p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s . From the number of p o t e n t i a l others contacted, a subset i s l i k e l y to develop i n t o f r i e n d s h i p s . When the number of p o t e n t i a l o t h e r s i s low, the number con t a c t e d i s low and t h i s , i n t u r n , a f f e c t s the p r o b a b i l i t y o f l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s . K e l l e r (1962) suggests t h a t when i n d i v i d u a l s f a i l to f i n d compatible others w i t h i n the neighbourhood they are l i k e l y to t r a v e l g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s i n order to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s h i p s . Researchers i n t e r e s t e d i n the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e ( I k l e , 1954; S t o u f f e r , 1954; Rushton, 1969) have u s u a l l y c i t e d the distance-decay f u n c t i o n to p r e d i c t the d e c l i n e with d i s t a n c e , i n the number of others with whom one a s s o c i a t e s . T h i s i s based on the assumption that the area of r e s i d e n c e c o n t a i n s a high d e n s i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y and that t h i s d i m i n i s h e s with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area of r e s i d e n c e . However, only under c o n d i t i o n s of homogeneity can i t be argued that areas c l o s e r t o one's r e s i d e n c e w i l l p r o v i d e a l a r g e r number of a v a i l a b l e o p p o r t u n i t i e s and that t h i s would decrease with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area o f one's r e s i d e n c e . When the l o c a l area i s homogeneous both, the time-cost i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e as well as the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s i m i l a r o t h e r s , encourage the 20 establishment of f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . L o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s may a l s o be i n f l u e n c e d by the p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y w i t h i n the l o c a l area. I f homogeneity does not i n c r e a s e , but the number o f people w i t h i n the same space i n c r e a s e s , then the number of compatible others or p o t e n t i a l f r i e n d s i n c r e a s e s . Assuming t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s of s i m i l a r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s engage i n s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s which b r i n g about p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s , an i n c r e a s e i n the number of people i n an area where homogeneity does not i n c r e a s e l e a d s t o an i n c r e a s e i n the p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n t a c t and t h e r e f o r e the p r o b a b i l i t y of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s . Under these c o n d i t i o n s , an i n d i v i d u a l i s more l i k e l y to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . He/she i s then more l i k e l y to t r a v e l s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s to maintain f r i e n d s than someone who l i v e s i n a s p a r s e l y populated area of l i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y or where o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s . Density w i t h i n l o c a l a r e a s , however, i s a s s o c i a t e d with socioeconomic s t a t u s . Both flowrer (1958) and Fava ( 1956) i n d i c a t e t h a t persons of high socioeconomic s t a t u s tend to l i v e i n l e s s densely populated areas at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s from the c i t y c e n t r e . T h i s can be r e l a t e d to the growth of North American c i t i e s d u r i n g the p o s t - ^ a r years and the r a p i d development o f r e s i d e n t i a l areas i n the periphery of the c e n t r a l business d i s t r i c t . T h i s era witnessed the e x t e n s i v e development of middle c l a s s suburbs (Smith et a l . , 1954)., With g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s now s e p a r a t i n g r e s i d e n c e from work, only persons o f higher SES could move t o new developments. T h e i r c o n t r o l over important resources such as income, occ u p a t i o n and the ownership 21 of the automobile not only a f f o r d e d more l i v i n g space, but a l s o allowed them t o r e t a i n access to c e n t r a l i z e d f a c i l i t i e s . An argument f o r the e f f e c t s of low d e n s i t y on l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p suggests t h a t i f homogeneity and a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n s i n these areas do not change, but the number of people i n the area decreases, then the number of s i m i l a r o t hers decreases, the number c o n t a c t e d decreases, l e a d i n g to a decrease i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p . Assuming K e l l e r ' s argument t h a t f r i e n d s h i p s extend to g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s when o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f r i e n d s h i p are not a v a i l a b l e c l o s e b y , one may argue t h a t persons of higher SES tend to t r a v e l g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s to maintain f r i e n d s h i p s . T h i s may be s t a t e d as a hypothesis: flJiEOthesis 3 The mean d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d w i l l be g r e a t e r the higher one's socioeconomic s t a t u s . Although r e l a t i v e s tend to be s p a t i a l l y d i s p e r s e d through s o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y , i t i s t h e o r i z e d t h a t the l o c a t i o n of r e l a t i v e s i s l i k e l y t o vary between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s depending upon the amount of r e l i a n c e on k i n . Because i n d i v i d u a l s of low socioeconomic s t a t u s l e a d a more c r i s i s -o r i e n t a t e d l i f e (Bott, 1957; Webber, 1964) they w i l l have l e s s i n c e n t i v e t o r e l o c a t e a t d i s t a n c e s beyond which c o n t a c t i s d i f f i c u l t to maintain. I f there i s t h i s r e l i a n c e on r e l a t i v e s to help out i n s m a l l and major c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s , then d i s t a n c e must be such as t o allow r a p i d house t o house movement. In c o n t r a s t , i n d i v i d u a l s of high s o c i a l c l a s s e s have l e s s i n c e n t i v e to maintain contact with r e l a t i v e s because t h e i r c o n t r o l over important resources allows them t o depend upon secondary and 22 i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d channels such as h o s p i t a l s , p r o f e s s i o n a l b a b y s i t t e r s and so on f o r help. I t may t h e r e f o r e be hypothesized t h a t : Hypothesis 4 The mean d i s t a n c e a t which r e l a t i v e s are l o c a t e d i s s m a l l e r , the lower one's socioeconomic s t a t u s . . The arguments presented, u t i l i z i n g assumptions of the t i m e - c o s t - d i s t a n c e argument and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t y as c o n s t r a i n t s on the l o c a t i o n o f f r i e n d s , are modified by the l e n g t h of time t h a t a f r i e n d s h i p has been maintained. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p l i c a b l e where f r i e n d s h i p s may have been formed at p l a c e s and c a r r i e d over p e r i o d s i n one's l i f e t h a t have nothing t o do with the c u r r e n t address. For example, i f f r i e n d s h i p s were made during high school and maintained throughout one's l i f e , g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s are l i k e l y t o separate the i n d i v i d u a l s . T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g as i n d i v i d u a l s are l i k e l y t o change r e s i d e n c e s as they change jobs or as the f a m i l y s i z e changes. However, i f the f r i e n d s h i p i s valued f o r i t s emotional p a y o f f s , d i s t a n c e i s not l i k e l y to a f f e c t i t s maintenance. S i m i l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r i s e f o r the length of time t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l has r e s i d e d i n the l o c a l area. Wolpert (1965) and Horton and Reynolds (1965) p o s i t t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y t o maintain f r i e n d s at former areas of re s i d e n c e u n t i l such time that an i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l i a r i z e s h i m s e l f or h e r s e l f with the r e s i d e n t s i n the new area. As f r i e n d s are made i n the l o c a l a rea, f r i e n d s at gr e a t e r d i s t a n c e s are l i k e l y to be r e l i n q u i s h e d because of the c o n s t r a i n t s on time. 23-Summary Two p r o p o s i t i o n s have been examined i n r e l a t i o n to f r i e n d s h i p s - - the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e and the importance o f s i m i l a r i t y . Researchers have i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e within neighbourhoods. They have shown t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l tends t o e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s h i p s w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s . However, one of the c e n t r a l determinants of d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d f o r the maintenance of a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p i s temporal c o n s t r a i n t s (such as, being on time f o r work, f o r d i n n e r and so on) which, i n t u r n , determines the amount o f time a v a i l a b l e f o r l e i s u r e a c t i v i t i e s . F r i e n d s h i p s a t g r e a t d i s t a n c e s are c o n s t r a i n e d by the time r e q u i r e d to t r a v e l which gets added to the time spent i n the d e s i r e d a c t i v i t y . The t i m e - c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e t h e r e f o r e generate pressures f a v o u r i n g the e s t a b l i s h m e n t of f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . As s i m i l a r i t y i s an important p r e r e q u i s i t e f o r f r i e n d s h i p , i t i s argued t h a t the t i m e - c o s t - d i s t a n c e argument f o r f r i e n d s h i p i s modified t o the extent t h a t t h e l o c a l area i n which one r e s i d e s provides s i m i l a r o t h e r s with whom one can be f r i e n d s . The number of persons who are s o c i a l l y s i m i l a r d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of persons i n the area d e f i n e s the d e n s i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p . When t h i s d e n s i t y of o p p o r t u n i t y i s g r e a t , l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s are more l i k e l y as t h e r e i s h i g h e r p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n o f the p o p u l a t i o n engage i n a c t i v i t i e s which b r i n g about p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s . From the number of p o t e n t i a l others contacted, a subset i s l i k e l y to develop i n t o f r i e n d s h i p . 2U Researchers i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e have p r e d i c t e d that the number of persons with whom one i n t e r a c t s decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area of one's re s i d e n c e . However, only under c o n d i t i o n s of homogeneity can i t argued that areas c l o s e r to one's r e s i d e n c e w i l l provide a g r e a t e r number of s i m i l a r and compatible others which then decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e away from the area of r e s i d e n c e . With a high degree of homogeneity both, the time-c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s o f d i s t a n c e as w e l l as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of s i m i l a r others, i n f l u e n c e the establishment of f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . Thus, i t i s not j u s t d i s t a n c e but a l s o , the s t r u c t u r i n g of o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h i n r e s i d e n t i a l areas which determine the d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s are maintained. The above arguments were used to d e r i v e the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses which are t e s t e d i n t h i s t h e s i s : The p r o p o r t i o n of 'others' i n the network co n t a c t e d i n a week i n c r e a s e s with decreases i n the d i s t a n c e at which they are l o c a t e d . The mean d i s t a n c e at which *others'are l o c a t e d i s s m a l l e r f o r f r i e n d s than f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. The mean d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s w i l l be g r e a t e r , the higher the socioeconomic s t a t u s . The mean d i s t a n c e at which r e l a t i v e s are l o c a t e d w i l l be s m a l l e r , the lower the socioeconomic s t a t u s . The next chapter d e s c r i b e s the sampling procedure, the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the concepts i n each of the hypotheses and the s t a t i s t i c a l models used i n the a n a l y s i s 25 CHAPTER 2 METHOD The aim of t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s t o examine some of the space-time c o n s t r a i n t s which determine the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d . The l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s i s compared t o that f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. Two p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n s i d e r e d important for f r i e n d s h i p a re: the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e and the importance of s i m i l a r i t y . Researchers suggest t h a t people e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s c l o s e b y . However, one of the c e n t r a l determinants of the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s i s temporal constraints-!—the time r e q u i r e d t o perform the major n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s determines the d i s t a n c e one may t r a v e l i n order to enqage i n s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . T r a v e l t o an a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n not only r e q u i r e s t r a v e l time but a l s o time f o r the d e s i r e d a c t i v i t y . These two f a c t o r s s e t l i m i t s on the d i s t a n c e one may t r a v e l to maintain f r i e n d s . Since s i m i l a r i t y i s important f o r f r i e n d s h i p s , i t i s suqgested t h a t the t i m e - c o s t - d i s t a n c e argument f o r f r i e n d s h i p i s supported to the the exte n t t h a t the l o c a l area p r o v i d e s s i m i l a r o t h e r s with whom one can be f r i e n d s . The number of persons who are s o c i a l l y s i m i l a r d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number of persons l i v i n g i n the area d e f i n e s t he den s i t y of op p o r t u n i t y f o r l o c a l 26 area f r i e n d s h i p s . When t h i s d e n s i t y i s g r e a t , l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s are more l i k e l y as t h e r e i s a higher p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l s engage i n a c t i v i t i e s which b r i n g about p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s . A number of r e s e a r c h e r s have p r e d i c t e d that the number of persons with whom one i n t e r a c t s decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area o f one's r e s i d e n c e . T h i s i s based on the assumption that the d e n s i t y of op p o r t u n i t y decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area of re s i d e n c e . However, only under c o n d i t i o n s of homogeneity does t h i s assumption h o l d . When the l o c a l area i s homogeneous both, the time - c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e as w e l l as the a v a i l a b i l i t y of s i m i l a r o t h e r s , i n f l u e n c e the esta b l i s h m e n t of f r i e n d s h i p s closeby., The theory t h e r e f o r e s t a t e s t h a t i t i s not j u s t the time-c o s t argument f o r d i s t a n c e , but a l s o , the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f op p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p , which determines the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s h i p s are maintained. Four hypotheses were formulated from t h e theory. T h i s chapter d e s c r i b e s the sampling procedure, the o p e r a t i o n a l i z a t i o n of the concepts and the s t a t i s t i c a l models used i n the study. The Data*_: Sampling Procedures The data f o r t h i s a n a l y s i s i s part of a broader study designed to i n v e s t i g a t e the c o n t e x t u a l e f f e c t s of the s o c i o -*For more i n f o r m a t i o n concerning the data and sampling procedure see Jack Scheu & S c o t t Meis, "The T e c h n i c a l Report on Vancouver Urban S t u d i e s P r o j e c t Time Budget Data" ( U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, 1973) 27 e c o l o g i c a l environment upon the behaviour of the i n h a b i t a n t s , 5 In p i c k i n g the areas to be sampled, i t was t h e r e f o r e e s s e n t i a l t h a t the sampling design c o n t r o l l e d f o r the composition of these areas so t h a t the w i t h i n area v a r i a t i o n was minimized and the between area v a r i a t i o n was maximized. The sample frame employed a mu l t i - s t a g e p u r p o s i v e l y s t r a t i f i e d random sampling design. In the s e l e c t i o n of the r e s i d e n t i a l areas as primary sampling u n i t s , a n i n e - c e l l e d typology was c o n s t r u c t e d t o c o n t r o l two dimensions of the demographic composition of the r e s i d e n t i a l areas: stage i n f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e and socioeconomic s t a t u s . By using a f a c t o r ecology i n c o n j u n c t i o n with a s o c i a l t o p o g r a p h i c a l mapping technique, two maps were produced—one d i s p l a y i n g the s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n by socioeconomic s t a t u s , and the other d i s p l a y i n g the s p a t i a l d i s t r i b u t i o n by f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e stage. These maps were overlayed and the boundaries of the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s as primary sampling u n i t s were chosen such t h a t each area represented a c e l l i n the f o l l o w i n g typology: sThe o r i g i n a l study . e c o l o g i c a l Environment and d i r e c t e d by George Gray. was designed to Or ban A c t i v i t y study "the S o c i o -Systems" and was 2 8 F i g u r e 1. Sampling Typology Dsed to C o n t r o l the Macro-demographic C h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the r e s i d e n t i a l areas chosen i n stage one STAGE IN FAMILY LIFE CYCLE Young Middle Mature High Socioeconomic s t a t u s Medium {Blishen Scale) Low (3) T 1 9 However, only e i g h t e m p i r i c a l cases were found t h a t adequately f i l l e d the typology. There appeared t o be no e m p i r i c a l i n s t a n c e s o f a r e s i d e n t i a l area with a c o n c e n t r a t i o n of young married couples with high socioeconomic s t a t u s . In the second s t a g e , a sample o f households was randomly s e l e c t e d from each of the sample areas. Osing the 1970 C i t y D i r e c t o r y f o r the m e t r o p o l i t a n area as sources, every household 29 w i t h i n the boundaries of each of the e i g h t primary sampling u n i t s was enumerated. T h i s produced e i g h t enumeration l i s t s . In a d d i t i o n to these s t r a t i f i e d random sampling c r i t e r i a , f u r t h e r c r i t e r i a o f sample e l i g i b i l i t y were employed to f a c i l i t a t e two a d d i t i o n a l study o b j e c t i v e s o f i n v e s t i g a t i n g the r e l a t i o n s between (1) people's work experience and t h e i r non-work a c t i v i t i e s , and (2) the nature o f interdependence between the husbands' and wives' d a i l y schedules.. T h e r e f o r e a household was considered e l i g i b l e i f i t c o n s i s t e d of at l e a s t one married couple, one member of which had c u r r e n t f u l l - t i m e employment. The household head and the spouse were both i n t e r v i e w e d . A household i n t e r v i e w survey was administered to 822 i n d i v i d u a l s randomly chosen from these e i g h t s o c i o - g e o g r a p h i c a l areas. The i n t e r v i e w i n v o l v e d questions r e l a t i n g to the f o l l o w i n g : (a) an enumeration of the respondent's s o c i a l network i n c l u d i n g neighbours, co-workers, r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s , (b) a d e s c r i p t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of each of these, and (c) a l o g of the v i s i t s with any o f these people i n the past week.* The t o t a l number of people mentioned as members of the respondents' s o c i a l network i s 17,836 o r , an average of 22 per respondent. The r e l a t i o n s h i p s t o the respondents i n v o l v e r e l a t i v e s (14.3%), f r i e n d s (17.2%), neighbours (58.0%) and work a s s o c i a t e s (10.4%). Neighbours c o n s t i t u t e the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n because the respondents were s p e c i f i c a l l y questioned about the people i n each contiguous d w e l l i n g u n i t , and a l l of 6 See a p p e n d i x A f o r i n t e r v i e w s c h e d u l e 30 these neighbours are i n c l u d e d i n the r e l a t i o n s h i p network l i s t r e g a r d l e s s of whether or not the respondent had a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p with the neighbours. Neighbours have been l e f t out from the a n a l y s i s because i t was not p o s s i b l e to d i s t i n g u i s h between those who a s s o c i a t e d with each other r e g u l a r l y and those who d i d not know each other at a l l . TABLE _1 The Number of People i n the Sample by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type R e l a t i o n s h i p Number Percent Mean # p/resp. T o t a l no of others 17,836 100 22.0 R e l a t i v e s 2,548 14.3 3.0 Friends 3.076 17.2 4.0 Neighbours 10,351 58.0 13.0 Work a s s o c i a t e s 1,857 10.1 2.0 The data c o n s i s t e d of 17,836 cases o f p a i r i n g a respondent with each r e l a t i v e , f r i e n d s , neighbour and co-worker. The p a i r s are compared on important s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as age, sex, income, occupation and other v a r i a b l e s r e l a t i n g to socioeconomic s t a t u s and family l i f e c y c l e stage. The u n i t of a n a l y s i s i s the s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the respondent and each of h i s or her c o n t a c t s . In other words the p a i r i s the u n i t of a n a l y s i s . The analyses based on the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n were performed by Midas. Those based on the 31 multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n were performed by independently w r i t t e n programmes, 7 7These programmes were w r i t t e n by Dr.James Li n d s e y . 32 Q p g E a t i o n a l i z a t i o n o f the Concepts The concepts mentioned i n hypotheses #1,#2,#3 and #4 which need t o be o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d are: type of r e l a t i o n s h i p , d i s t a n c e , socioeconomic s t a t u s , d e c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e and p r o p o r t i o n contacted. R e l a t i o n s h i p ty_p.e.--Individuals i n the sample were asked to enumerate members of t h e i r network i n terms of whether they were (1) r e l a t i v e s , |2) f r i e n d s , (3) neighbours and (4) co-workers. Because the t h e o r i e s t e s t e d i n v o l v e d temporal and s p a t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s , p a r t i c u l a r l y within the context of d a i l y and weekly time c y c l e s , respondents were asked t o name only those r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s who l i v e d i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area and whom they had seen or v i s i t e d i n the s i x months before the i n t e r v i e w . The theory acknowledges t h a t f o r d a i l y or weekly v i s i t i n g , people are r e s t r i c t e d to v i s i t i n g o r s e e i n g o t h e r s w i t h i n the metro context. For co-workers, the c r i t e r i o n o f membership was whether the respondent spoke to the 'other' more than once a day a t the work place. In coding the r e l a t i o n s h i p types, t h i r t y f i v e codes were: c r e a t e d to account f o r a l l p o s s i b l e combinations of r e l a t i o n a l types, ranging from s i n g l e - s t r a n d e d to f o u r - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s was then recoded i n t o a v a r i a b l e of f o u r c a t e g o r i e s of {1) r e l a t i v e s , (2) neighbours, (3) f r i e n d s and (4) co-workers. where there was a combination of r e l a t i o n s h i p s , f o r example i f a r e l a t i v e was a neighbour as w e l l as a f r i e n d , he or she was recoded using the f o l l o w i n g h i e r a r c h y : r e l a t i v e s took p r i o r i t y over a l l the o t h e r s , then neighbour, then co-worker, with f r i e n d being t r e a t e d as a r e s i d u a l category. 33 Where there was a combination of c a t e g o r i e s , t h e r e was the problem t h a t the boundary d e f i n i t i o n s o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p types may have been c l a s s biased. T h i s problem i s r e l a t e d t o the n o t i o n that i f r e l a t i v e s were a l s o f r i e n d s , i t may have been p o s s i b l e t h a t the lower s o c i a l c l a s s e s were more i n c l i n e d to report these as r e l a t i v e s i n c o n t r a s t to the upper s o c i a l c l a s s e s who might r e p o r t these as f r i e n d s . Had t h i s been the case, the boundary d e f i n i t i o n s of the v a r i a b l e , r e l a t i o n s h i p type, would a f f e c t the f r e g u e n c i e s within each r e l a t i o n s h i p type between s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The a n a l y s i s i n c hapter three would then have been suspect. In order t o check f o r t h i s p o s s i b l e b i a s , a frequency t a b l e f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s by r e l a t i o n s h i p type was computed. The r e l a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e comprises a l l t h i r t y f i v e p o s s i b l e combinations of r e l a t i o n a l t y p e s . a Examination of the f r e g u e n c i e s i n t a b l e 2 suggest t h a t the m a j o r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s are s i n g l e - s t r a n d e d . The very s m a l l number of m u l t i - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s probably r e f l e c t s the North American s i t u a t i o n where the high degree of s o c i a l d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , s o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y and the widespread ownership of the automobile r e s u l t s i n s p e c i a l i z e d networks at v a r i o u s l o c a t i o n s i n the c i t y . I t i s t h e r e f o r e l e s s l i k e l y f o r a r e l a t i v e to be d e f i n e d as a f r i e n d and v i c e - v e r s a . 8 A l l those codes with zero values were not p r i n t e d out. ZAfiU 2 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Occupation by B e l a t i o n s h i p Type Uncollapsed Occupational s t a t u s 1 a* Bel.type 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 . B I t i r e s 9.5% 12.0% 11.6% 11.5% 17.2% 13.9% (177) (168) (179) (118) (88) (310) 2.Ctq.nqbr 48.0% 47.1% 44.4% 48.0% 48.2% 49.4% (904) (659) (691) (494) (247) (1091) 3.O.nqbr. 8.0% 6.3% 7.8% 10.3% 4.5% 6.0% (150) (88) (121) (106) (23) (133) «.Co-vrkr. 17.7% 15.9% 17.2% 13.3% 13.5% 13.7% (334) (222) (268) (137) (69) (302) 5 .Friend 14.6% 15.8% 16.7% 14.7% ' 15.4% 15. 1% (275) (221) (260) (151) (79) (333) ll.Co-wrkr/ .6% .7% .1% .3* .2% .3% frnd (12) (10) ( 2) ( 3) ( D ( 6) 12.Ctq.nbr/ .2% .6% .3% .8% 0 .2% fr n d ( 4) ( 8) ( 5) ( 8) 0 ( 4) 13.0.nqbr/ .6% .8% 1.2% .2% .4% .3% frnd (11) (11) (18) ( 2) ( 2) ( 6) 1 4 . R l t i v e / 0 0 . 1% .2% 0 0 frnd 0 0 ( D ( 2) 0 0 15.HltiTe/ .2% 0 .1% .5% 0 . 1% co-wrkr ( 4) 0 ( D ( 5) 0 ( 4) 17.Blti»e/ 0 0 0 0 .4% 0 ctq.nbr. 0 0 0 0 ( 2) 0 1 9 . B l t i v e / .4% .6% .7% 0 .2% .5% frnd ( 7) ( 9) (11) 0 ( D (12) 24.0.nbr/ . 1% .1% 0 .1% 0 . 1% r l t i v e ( 2) ( 2) 0 ( 1) 0 ( D 25.Co-»rkr/ 0 0 0 .1% 0 0 rel/O.nbr 0 0 0 { 1) 0 ( D 27.Co-wrkr/ .1% 0 0 .1% 0 0 o .nbr/frnd ( 1) 0 0 ( 1) 0 0 28.Co-wrkr/ .1% 0 0 .1% 0 .2% o.nbr. ( 2) 0 0 < 1 » . 0 ( 4) 35.0.nbr/ 0 0 0 0 0 .1% r e l / f r n d 0 0 0 0 0 ( 2) <a>codes f o r occupational status are (1) Major p r o p r i e t o r s , (2) Bajor p r o f e s s i o n a l s , (3) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e (4) s i a l l business, (5) c l e r i c a l and s a l e s and (6) aanual 35 T h i s i s e v i d e n t from the f a c t t h a t , although given the o p p o r t u n i t y to r e p o r t r e l a t i o n s h i p s as m u l t i - s t r a n d e d , very few cases were mentioned. The p r o p o r t i o n of m u l t i - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s i s l i k e l y to be s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n s m a l l h i g h l y s t a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l communities or i n e t h n i c communities where o v e r l a p between r e l a t i o n s h i p types develops through time. But even then, the d i s t i n c t i o n between r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s i s kept because f r i e n d s h i p depends upon an i n t e r a c t i o n a l component. The r e l a t i o n s h i p with a r e l a t i v e does not change with l a c k of i n t e r a c t i o n as f r i e n d s h i p s do., One cannot draw any c o n c l u s i v e evidence f o r the problem of whether t h e r e were any d i f f e r e n c e s i n the boundary d e f i n i t i o n s of r e l a t i o n s h i p types between s o c i a l c l a s s e s . Assuming that t h e r e were these d i f f e r e n c e s , one way o f d e a l i n g w i t h the problem would be to l e a v e out the m u l t i - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s from the a n a l y s i s s i n c e t h e r e were such a s m a l l number of cases i n v o l v e d ( f u r t h e r reduced because neighbours are not i n c l u d e d ) . Tables were computed f o r t h e e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r r e l a t i v e s , with and without e x c l u d i n g m u l t i - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I f , i n c o l l a p s i n g the o r i g i n a l r e l a t i o n s h i p type v a r i a b l e , r e l a t i v e s took p r i o r i t y over a l l other s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s , then any d i f f e r e n c e s i n the freguency d i s t r i b u t i o n would appear i n these t a b l e s . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n t a b l e s 3 and 4, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean d i s t a n c e parameter value between the two c o n d i t i o n s (1;he biggest d i f f e r e n c e being ,22 of a mile f o r the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel). For t h i s reason, the m u l t i - s t r a n d e d r e l a t i o n s h i p s were i n c l u d e d i n the a n a l y s i s . They were 36 c o l l a p s e d i n t o the r e l a t i o n s h i p type v a r i a b l e u s i n g the h i e r a r c h y d e s c r i b e d above, TABLE 3 Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l Status f o r R e l a t i v e s with M u l t i - s t r a n d e d R e l a t i o n s h i p s Included d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s of miles Occupation H Mean Mean sgr Variance S t d . i 1,Maj. Prop, 174 2. 44 5.99 1. 20 1.09 2,Maj. Prof. :, 162 2.42 5.85 .98 .99 3,Admin. 174 2. 53 6.39 1. 00 1.00 4.Small Bus. 120 2. 39 5 . 7 2 1. 25 1.12 5 . C l r l / s a l e s 82 2.56 6.57 .91 .95 6.Manual 312 2. 43 5.90 .98 .99 Grand mean 1,024 2. 45 6.01 1. 04 1.0 2 Eta square = .0027 F (5, 1018) = .54217 {siq l e v e l = .74) E q u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f.= 5, .94829 • 6; F = 1.1107 <siq l e v e l = , 36) 37 Dependence o f Distance on Occupa t i o n a l S t a t u s f o r B e l a t i v e s with M u l t i - s t r a n d e d R e l a t i o n s h i p s Removed d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of miles occupation H Mean Mean sgr Variance Std.dev I.Maj .prop. 161 2.47 6.06 1.21 1.0 1 2.«aj. Prof. 153 2. 42 5. 83 1.00 1.00 3.Admin. 162 2.57 6.61 1. 04 1.02 4.Small Bus. •113 2. 41 5.79 1. 26 1. 22 5 . C l r l / s a l e s 81 2. 55 6.51 .90 .96 6.Manual 294 2.44 5.94 .97 .99 Grand mean "~964~ 2747~ eToi' ------ TTo3 ~~ Eta square = .0033 F(5 , 958) = . 64170 ( s i q l e v e l = . 67) E q u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f= 5 , . 85827 + 6; F = 1.1427 ( s i q l e v e l = . 34) JP£5£OEtiofi c o n t a c t e d . — F o r each member of the network named, the respondent was asked i f there had been c o n t a c t i n the l a s t seven days be f o r e the i n t e r v i e w . T h i s v a r i a b l e had two codes with (1) where there was no c o n t a c t and (2) i n c l u d i n g those who had contact the l a s t seven days before the i n t e r v i e w . The number of those c o n t a c t e d d i v i d e d by the t o t a l number i n a network r e p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n contacted. A s i m i l a r procedure f o r those not contacted r e p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n not contacted. 38 Distance.--Respondents i n the sample were asked where the ' o t h e r s ' i n t h e i r network l i v e d i n the m e t r o p o l i t a n area, The l o c a t i o n they gave was coded using a three d i g i t code t o s p e c i f y the g r i d l o c a t i o n on an east-west and a north-south a x i s . A c t u a l d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of a mile was c a l c u l a t e d according to the f o l l o w i n g formula: cd = xd • yd where xd = x geo c o - o r d i n a t e f o r respondent - x geo c o - o r d i n a t e f o r 'other', and yd = y geo c o - o r d i n a t e f o r respondent - y geo c o - o r d i n a t e f o r 'other',. Figure 2 shows the s t r e e t l a y o u t of the West End of Vancouver demonstrating t h a t the s t r e e t s form a g r i d so t h a t a c t u a l d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d can be measured using the formula given above. C a l c u l a t i n g d i s t a n c e using the above formula r e p r e s e n t s a more ac c u r a t e p i c t u r e of the d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d than i f one were t a k i n g the d i s t a n c e as the crow f l i e s . , The d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e was transformed to approximate the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n by the sguare r o o t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . The d i s t r i b u t i o n of the d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e untransformed i s bi-modal when neighbours are i n c l u d e d and h i g h l y skewed t o the r i g h t when neighbours are excluded. With the neighbours l e f t out from the a n a l y s i s , comparisons between d i f f e r e n t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s showed the sguare ro o t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n to y i e l d the most symmetrical d i s t r i b u t i o n . Figure 2. Street Layout of the West End of Vancouver 40 One reason f o r the t r a n s f o r m a t i o n i s t h a t i f one accepts the theory behind a n a l y s i s o f va r i a n c e , then comparisons between the means make l i t t l e sense unless the assumptions of normality are met. Tables 5 and 6 re p r e s e n t t h e dependence of d i s t a n c e upon r e l a t i o n s h i p type f o r the transformed and untransformed d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e . In t a b l e 5 the mean r e p r e s e n t s the mean of the square r o o t d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e . T h i s has been squared and i s represented as the mean squared. The mean squared d i s t a n c e i s the value t h a t i s used i n the a n a l y s i s t o d e s c r i b e the d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s and co-workers are maintained. T A B I J - 5 Dependence of Distance (transformed) on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths o f m i l e s Rel.type N Mean mean sqr Variance Std.Dev 1.Relatives 1,047 2. 45 6.00 1.04 1.02 2.Friends 1,308 2.18 4.75 1.07 1.03 3.Co-workers 1,330 2.73 7.45 .97 .99 Grand mean 3,685 2.46 ~6703 TTol l704 Etg sqr = .050 F{2,3682) = 96 .957 (sig le v e l - . 0000) Equality of variance test: d.f.=; 2, . 29698 + 8; F = 1 (sig l e v e l = . 21) 41 TABLE 6 Dependence of D i s t a n c e ( u n t r a n s f ormed) on R e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of miles Bel.type N Mean Variance Std. dev 1 . r e l a t i v e s 1,047 7.04 31. 15 5. 58 2 . f r i e n d s 1,30 8 5. 83 26.05 5. 13 3.co-workers 1,330 8. 43 32.89 5. 74 Grand mean 3,685 7. 11 31. 17 5. 58 Eta Sgr = .0 39 F(2,3682) = 74 . 7 5 ( s i g Level=.000) E g u a l i t y Of V a r i a n c e T e s t : D.f.= 2, . 29698 +8; P = 9.4895 (s i g L e v e l = .00) Comparisons between t a b l e s 5 and 6 suggest that the p a t t e r n of e f f e c t s are the same i n both t a b l e s . F r i e n d s are l o c a t e d c l o s e s t , f o l l o w e d by r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s . In order to show t h a t normal d i s t r i b u t i o n s remain b e l l - s h a p e d with the mean d e f i n i n g the l o c a t i o n o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n along the x - a x i s , the d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r each r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s p l o t t e d , using the mean of the sguare r o o t transformed d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e (from t a b l e 5). The d i s t r i b u t i o n s are i l l u s t r a t e d i n F i g u r e 3. The p l o t t i n g of the d i s t r i b u t i o n s i s done by t a k i n g the s t a n d a r d i z e d s c o r e 9 f o r the d i f f e r e n t values of p(i) using the f o l l o w i n g formula: Y.<i) - u s F i g u r e 3 shows t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r the th r e e type of r e l a t i o n s h i p s remain b e l l - s h a p e d , i t s l o c a t i o n on the x- a x i s defined by the mean. Figure 4 shows the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s p l o t t e d , using the mean squared, a g a i n s t the histograms r e p r e s e n t i n g the a c t u a l d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e untransformed. One can see from Figure 4 t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n p l o t t e d using the mean squared best approximates the a c t u a l d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e . For t h i s reason, the mean squared has been used i n the d e s c r i p t i o n . 1 0 *The s t a n d a r d i z e d s c o r e s are looked up i n the t a b l e o f Ordinates of the Normal Curve i n c l u d e d i n the Appendix. The f i g u r e given i n the body of t h i s t a b l e i s then d i v i d e d by ^2TTF2 and the r e s u l t p l o t t e d f o r values of p ( i ) . 1 0 S e e s t a t i s t i c a l appendix f o r a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s . 43 F i g u r e 3. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D i s t a n c e by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type f o r t h e D i s t a n c e V a r i a b l e Transformed F i g u r e 4. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D i s t a n c e f o r F r i e n d s P l o t t e d U s i n g the Mean Squared A g a i n s t H i s t o g r a m s o f the D i s t a n c e V a r i a b l e U n t r a n s f o r m e d t o Show Goodness o f F i t 45 Decreasing distance.--The f i r s t hypothesis s t a t e s t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of 'others' i n the network contacted i n c r e a s e s with decreases i n the d i s t a n c e at which they are l o c a t e d . To t e s t t h i s h y p othesis the a c t u a l d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e was recoded i n t o the f o l l o w i n g f o u r c a t e g o r i e s t o r e p r e s e n t varying d i s t a n c e s at which one's networks were l o c a t e d : (1) 0.1 - 2 m i l e s , (2) 2.1 4.9 miles, (3) 5 - 10 miles and (4) 10.1 miles and beyond. This recode was based on an examination o f the histograms computed f o r the d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e . The d e c i s i o n t o make the c u t t i n g p o i n t s was i n f l u e n c e d by the f a c t t h a t the primary sampling u n i t s of t h i s study were d e f i n e d by a one mile r a d i u s . T h i s means t h a t 2 m i l e s d e f i n e the maximum d i s t a n c e f o r l o c a l area c o n t a c t . The f i r s t code 0.1 to 2 miles r e p r e s e n t s l o c a t i o n o f networks w i t h i n the l o c a l area. The other three codes r e p r e s e n t l o c a t i o n s a t p r o g r e s s i v e l y g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s from the l o c a l area. Socioeconomic s t a t u s . - - H y p o t h e s i s #3 and #4 d e a l with the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s f o r r e l a t i v e s and f r i e n d s . The problem i n o p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g SES arose i n f o c u s i n g on those v a r i a b l e s which were r e l i a b l e i n d i c a t o r s of socioeconomic s t a t u s . Although socioeconomic s t a t u s tends t o be the b a s i s of much a n a l y s i s and i s o f t e n used i n e x p l a n a t i o n of behaviour, i t has never been c l e a r l y c o n c e p t u a l i z e d except i n the sense t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n a s o c i e t y are s t r a t i f i e d and d i s t i n g u i s h e d by having "more or l e s s of such t h i n g s as education, income and p r e s t i g i o u s or s t a t u s - g i v i n g occupations e t c " ( L i n d s e y , 1975:1). Occupation, income and education were used as three 46 separate i n d i c a t o r s of socioeconomic s t a t u s . The H o l l i n g s h e a d S c a l e was used as an i n d i c a t o r o f o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e . , From the i n i t i a l c o d e s 1 1 the f o l l o w i n g s i x codes were d e r i v e d : 1 2 (1) major p r o p r i e t o r s , (2) major p r o f e s s i o n a l s , (3) a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel, (4) owners o f s m a l l businesses and l e s s e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s , (5) c l e r i c a l and s a l e s arid (6) manual workers. An attempt was made t o i n c l u d e those occupations which e n t a i l e d s i m i l a r work d u t i e s under the same c a t e g o r i e s . Income i n v o l v e d the f o l l o w i n g f i v e c a t e g o r i e s : (1) $18,000* (2) $14,000 - $17,999, <3) $10,000 - $13,999 , (4) $6,000 - $9,999 and (5) 0 - $5,999. S i m i l a r l y the f o l l o w i n g f i v e c a t e g o r i e s f o r e d u c a t i o n : (1) u n i v e r s i t y degree, (2) some u n i v e r s i t y , (3) completed high s c h o o l , (4) grade 9 - 1 1 and (5) grade 8 or l e s s . 1 1 S e e Appendix B f o r Ho l l i n g s h e a d S c a l e 1 2 I n r e c o d i n g the H o l l i n g s h e a d Scale the e x e c u t i v e s , major p r o p r i e t o r s , business managers and medium p r o r i e t o r s were c l a s s i f i e d , under s o c i a l c l a s s 1; serai p r o f e s s i o n a l s and t e c h n i c i a n s under s o c i a l c l a s s 2; the a d m i n i s t r a t i v e personnel as s o c i a l c l a s s 3; the l e s s e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s and s m a l l b u s i n e s s e s as s o c i a l c l a s s 4; the s a l e s and c l e r i c a l workers as s o c i a l c l a s s 5 and the manual workers as s o c i a l c l a s s 6. 47 The S t a t i s t i c a l Models The a n a l y s i s u t i l i z e d two s t a t i s t i c a l models, the extended l o g i s t i c model based on the multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n and an a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e model based on t h e normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . * 3 T h i s s e c t i o n reviews b r i e f l y these s t a t i s t i c a l models. The model c o n s i d e r e d f i r s t i s known as the extended l o g i s t i c model and i s represented mathematically : 1°<J (Pvut/P^) = * °^k This model i s based on the multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h i s means that the use of the l o g i s t i c model makes no assumptions about shape of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the dependent v a r i a b l e : With the multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n , the v a r i a b l e s are assumed t o ; be c o n s t r u c t e d from nominal c a t e g o r i e s , so that no mathematical s t r u c t u r e c o u l d be used t o r e l a t e the c a t e g o r i e s d i r e c t l y to each other., Corresponding t o each category, a p r o b a b i l i t y p(k) was d e f i n e d with the only a p r i o r i r e l a t i o n s h i p among these parameters being that they sum to u n i t y , i n the same way as f o r any p r o b a b i l i t y d i s t r i b u t i o n (Lindsey,1978:13). Thus, i n a multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n every value of p produces a change i n t h e shape o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n of the dependent v a r i a b l e u n l i k e t h a t i n a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n where a change i n u^ produces a change i n the l o c a t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n with the shape of the d i s t r i b u t i o n remaining constant. The use of the l o g i s t i c model t h e r e f o r e generates a r e s u l t matrix r e p r e s e n t i n g each of the p^s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n . T h i s model i s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r d e s c r i b i n g nominal * 3 F o r more i n f o r m a t i o n on the l o g i s t i c model see Linds e y , J. K. , Primary. Education i n Bombay_i I n t r o d u c t i o n to a • S o c i a l Survey (Pergamon Press, 1978), p. 8-15. And Li n d s e y , J . K. , I n f e r e n c e s from S o c i o l o g i c a l Suryey D a t a i A U n i f i e d Approach ( E l s e v i e r , Amsterdam, 1973) 48 v a r i a b l e s . The only kind of mathematical statement which can be made of the c a t e g o r i e s i s the r e l a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l belonging to each category. For example, i f there are two c a t e g o r i e s , then the r e l a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l f a l l i n g i n the f i r s t c a t e g o r y versus the second i s c a l c u l a t e d by t a k i n g the r a t i o o f the p r o b a b i l i t i e s o r the odds of the i n d i v i d u a l f a l l i n g i n the f i r s t and comparing i t to the odds of the second. T h i s i s the b a s i s o f the extended l o g i s t i c model. T h i s b a s i c model may be extended to a two v a r i a b l e case where f o r example, i f k i s the dependent v a r i a b l e and values of the independent v a r i a b l e <i) are given f o r values of k, the r e l a t i v e p r o b a b i l i t y of an i n d i v i d u a l f a l l i n g i n a p a r t i c u l a r category c f both I and k i s c a l c u l a t e d by comparing t h i s p r o b a b i l i t y (p.- ) to the geometric mean o f being i n any category I f o r given values of k. T h i s s e t of r a t i o s i s u s u a l l y represented as: /Pi, where p i s the geometric mean of the . ( p ^ ) s*. .. T h i s procedure which compares i n d i v i d u a l p r o b a b i l i t i e s to the geometric mean allows one to compare r e l a t i o n s h i p between the c a t e g o r i e s . The most important r e s u l t o f comparing a l l p r o b a b i l i t i e s t o the mean i s th a t i t f o r c e s one t o t h i n k i n terms of r e l a t i o n s h i p s among the c a t e g o r i e s . No va l u e has meaning except i n r e l a t i o n to the others (Lindsey,1978:77). 49 The above e x p r e s s i o n i s u s u a l l y transformed by t a k i n g i t s n a t u r a l l o g a r i t h m which makes i t e a s i e r f o r c a l c u l a t i o n s . Instead of m u l t i p l y i n g and d i v i d i n g , use of l o g s allows one t o do the same c a l c u l a t i o n s by a d d i t i o n and s u b t r a c t i o n r e s p e c t i v e l y . Taking the l o g of the above e x p r e s s i o n y i e l d s the f o l l o w i n g e x p r e s s i o n : l o g t p ^ / p V ) I f the r e s u l t i n g e x p r e s s i o n i s p o s i t i v e i t r e p r e s e n t s a p r o b a b i l i t y t h a t i s g r e a t e r than average; i f negat i v e , a p r o b a b i l i t y l e s s than average. .. The extended l o g i s t i c model i s the d i r e c t analogue o f the one way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e where we are i n t e r e s t e d i n f i n d i n g out how the mean of the dependent v a r i a b l e changes with the values of the independent v a r i a b l e . The expression log(p^/p^,) = u^+ <LJJH, r e p r e s e n t s t h i s change i n the mean but d i v i d e s i t i n t o two p a r t s , an average p r o b a b i l i t y ^ of being i n category k which i s the same f o r a l l values o f the independent v a r i a b l e , and a f a c t o r ac ^  which i s s p e c i f i c f o r that category o f the independent v a r i a b l e i . An example may be u s e f u l i n i l l u s t r a t i n g the workings of t h i s model. T a b l e 7 r e p r e s e n t s the frequency d i s t r i b u t i o n of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s by r e l a t i o n s h i p type. From t a b l e 7, the odds of a person i n o c c u p a t i o n a l cateqory 1 having with co-workers versus r e l a t i v e s i n the network i s 349/190 = 1,83 to one. The extended l o g i s t i c model decomposes t h i s i n t o two p a r t s , an average f o r t h a t category of the dependent v a r i a b l e f o r a l l o c c u p a t i o n a l groups and a f a c t o r s p e c i f i c t o 50 o c c u p a t i o n a l category 1. TABLE 7 Frequency D i s t r i b u t i o n of Occupation by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type type of r e l a t i o n s h i p . • . . . - -. .. _. Occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1.Major prop 190 275 349 2.Major prof 179 221 232 3 . A d m i n i s t r a t i v e 192 260 270 4.small business 127 151 142 5 . C l e r i c a l / s a l e s 91 79 70 6.Manual 330 333 312 H = 3803 The e f f e c t of occupation on the d i s t r i b u t i o n , of r e l a t i o n s h i p type as given by the matrix of alpha v a l u e s are presented i n t a b l e 8. From the mean v e c t o r i n t a b l e 8, the average odds of having co-workers versus r e l a t i v e s i n the network f o r a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s are e< 0 . 0 6 0V-<-o , to7) which i s equal to 1.18 to one. The f a c t o r s p e c i f i c to the major p r o p r i e t o r s i s c a l c u l a t e d from the alpha values from t a b l e 8 which i s e < o . 2 2 2 ) - c - o . 219) which i s 1.55 t o one. T h i s l a t t e r value suggests t h a t persons i n o c c u p a t i o n a l category 1 have 1.55 times the average odds of having co-workers versus r e l a t i v e s i n the network. 51 TABLE 8 E f f e c t s of O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e l a t i o n s h i p Type as Measured by the Matrix o f ©(fu Values type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1. Major prop -0.219 -0.003 0. 222 2. Major prof -0.050 0.007 0. 043 S.Adminis -0. 108 0.04 1 0. 066 4.Small business 0.012 0.031 -0.043 5. C l e r i c a l / s a l e s 0.242 -0.054 -0.188 6. Manual 0. 123 -0.222 -0.100 Mean -0. 107 0. 047 0.060 XZ{10) = 44.83 Note: the l a s t row i s the v e c t o r of means u Thus, the decompositon of odds r a t i o i s 1.83 = 1.18 x 1.55 as represented by the l o g i s t i c model l o g t p ^ / p ^ ) = "I-XKJ where / ^ r e p r e s e n t s the average odds f o r a l l s o c i a l c l a s s e s f o r t h a t category of the dependent v a r i a b l e and <<£K/the f a c t o r s p e c i f i c t o one o c c u p a t i o n a l category. Comparisons between c a t e g o r i e s are t h e r e f o r e c a l c u l a t e d by e x p o n e n t i a t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e between alpha v a l u e s . T h i s transforms the odds back from,the l o g a r i t h m i c s c a l e and, when m u l t i p l i e d by the average odds, r e p r e s e n t s the r a t i o of observed 52 f r e g u e n c i e s . However, onl y the alpha v a l u e s are necessary f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s which i s expressed by the p a t t e r n s of s i g n s and the magnitude of the alpha v a l u e s . P o s i t i v e values i n d i c a t e combinations t h a t occur more f r e q u e n t l y than i f there were no a s s o c i a t i o n and negative values those that occur l e s s f r e q u e n t l y . S i n c e these alpha v a l u e s are e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative d e v i a t i o n s from the mean, the a d d i t i o n of these l o g v a l u e s over both row and column must sum to zero. , The second b a s i c model i s the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n which i s used f o r the f i r s t s e c t i o n of the a n a l y s i s with d i s t a n c e as the dependent v a r i a b l e . T h i s has somewhat d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s about the way i n which the independent v a r i a b l e a f f e c t s the dependent v a r i a b l e . In a multinomial d i s t r i b u t i o n , a change i n the value of p^ produces a change i n the shape of d i s t r i b u t i o n of the dependent v a r i a b l e . Where assumptions of normality are made however, as t h e independent v a r i a b l e changes the mean of the dependent v a r i a b l e moves along the x - a x i s , while the v a r i a b i l i t y of the d i s t r i b u t i o n , as measured by the v a r i a n c e , remains constant. The same shape of the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n would appear on a l l the graphs and a given value of the independent v a r i a b l e determines the l o c a t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n , as measured by the mean. Summary T h i s chapter has given a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of the sampling procedure. An attempt was a l s o made t o e x p l a i n how each of the v a r i a b l e s used i n the a n a l y s i s were c o n s t r u c t e d . The two s t a t i s t i c a l models used i n the a n a l y s i s have a l s o been 53 discussed,. The next chapter deals w i t h the a n a l y s i s of the hypotheses posited i n chapter one. 5 4 CHAPTER 3 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS T h i s chapter presents the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the f o u r hypotheses d e r i v e d from the theory which s t a t e s t h a t i t i s not j u s t the t i m e - c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e , but a l s o , the d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p , which determines the d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s h i p s are maintained. The methods used i n the c o l l e c t i o n of the data, as well as the methods used to t e s t these hypotheses, were d i s c u s s e d i n the previous chapter. The a n a l y s i s of the data i s t r e a t e d f o r males only. Although couples were sampled, husbands and wives were coded as i n d i v i d u a l s . The problem arose i n a s s i g n i n g socioeconomic s t a t u s t o the females. As only 4 7% of the females were members of the labour f o r c e , and some worked part-time, i n f e r e n c e s from t h e i r o c c u p a t i o n a l and income s t a t u s f o r behaviour would be misleading. Females were t h e r e f o r e l e f t out of the a n a l y s i s . E f f e c t s of D i s t a n c e on Prop_ortion Contacted!* Researchers have shown t h a t t h a t people tend to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s closeby. However, i t was pointed out t h a t one of the u F o r comparison between percentage t a b l e s and r e s u l t s from the l o g i s t i c model, see S t a t i s t i c a l Appendix. 55 c e n t r a l determinants of the l o c a t i o n of v i s i t i n g a c t i v i t y , or d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d , i s temporal c o n s t r a i n t s (such as work, meal times, s c h o o l and so on), which then determine the amount of time a v a i l a b l e f o r s o c i a l and r e c r e a t i o n a l a c t i v i t i e s . In order to t r a v e l t o a c e r t a i n l o c a t i o n t o engage 1 i n an a c t i v i t y , an i n d i v i d u a l must account f o r t r a v e l time as w e l l as time t o engage i n the d e s i r e d a c t i v i t y . Assuming t h a t n o n - d i s c r e t i o n a r y a c t i v i t i e s take precedence duri n g the d a i l y and weekly c y c l e s , i t was t h e o r i z e d t h a t l i m i t e d time would favour s h o r t journeys, or t r a v e l over short d i s t a n c e s . S i n c e t r a v e l i s a s s o c i a t e d with time, money and energy c o s t s , an i n d i v i d u a l may want t o t r a d e these c o s t s by spending a g r e a t e r amount o f time at the d i s t a n t d e s t i n a t i o n . As t h i s i s r e s t r i c t e d by l i m i t e d l e i s u r e time d u r i n g the d a i l y and weekly c y c l e , p r e s s u r e s are generated f a v o u r i n g a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s more f r e q u e n t l y . Thus, i f i n d i v i d u a l s have 'o t h e r s ' l o c a t e d both near and f a r , the p r o p o r t i o n contacted i n a week i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e with decreases i n the d i s t a n c e at which they are l o c a t e d (Hypothesis #1). Table 9 r e p r e s e n t s the contingency t a b l e f o r the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on the p r o p o r t i o n i n the network contacted i n a week, not c o n t r o l l i n g f o r type of r e l a t i o n s h i p . The Chi-sguare shows t h a t d i s t a n c e i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the p r o b a b i l i t y of c o n t a c t at p < 0.01. 56 TABLE 9 E f f e c t of Distance on P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others* Contacted i n a Reek d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of miles 0.1-2m 2. 1-4. 9m 5.0-10m 10.1 + T o t a l Ho Contact 55. 1% 62.7% 72.7% 75.8% (354) (566) (899) (629) 2,448 Contact 44.9% 37.3% 27.3% 24.2% (288) (336) (337) (223) 1,184 T o t a l 10055 100% 100% 100% 100% 642 902 1,236 852 3,632* *53 cases with no i n f o r m a t i o n t e s t of indep: d.f.~ 3; Chi-sguare = 99.244 ( s i g l e v e l = 0.00) Table 9 shoss that the p r o p o r t i o n contacted d e c l i n e s , as p r e d i c t e d , with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e . The h i g h e s t p r o p o r t i o n contacted i s l o c a t e d w i t h i n 0.1 to 2 miles (44.9%) i n c o n t r a s t to 24.2% a t ten miles and beyond. T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a de c r e a s i n g r a t e o f 46%. Persons l i v i n g c l o s e b y are more l i k e l y t o be contacted than those l i v i n g beyond t e n miles. S i m i l a r t a b l e s were generated f o r the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on the p r o p o r t i o n c o n t a c t e d f o r each r e l a t i o n s h i p type. Table 10 r e p r e s e n t s the p r o p o r t i o n contacted by d i s t a n c e f o r r e l a t i v e s . 57 TABLE 10 Pr o p o r t i o n of 'Others' Contacted by Distance f o r R e l a t i v e s d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of miles 0.1-2m 2.1-4.9m 5.0-10m 10.1 + T o t a l No Contact 38.4% 46.4% 58. 5% 55.8% (66) (127) (196) (130) 519 Contact 61.6% 53.6% 41.5% 44.2% (106) (147) (139) (103) 495 T o t a l 100% 172 100% 274 100% 335 100% 233 1,014* *33 cases with no i n f o r m a t i o n T e s t of indep: d.f.= 3, Chi-sguare.= 31.959 ( s i g l e v e l = 0.00) The Chi-sguare shows t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of r e l a t i v e s contacted i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to distance.. The p r o p o r t i o n contacted decreases r a p i d l y up to 10 miles, Beyond ten m i l e s , there i s a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n the p r o p o r t i o n c o n t a c t e d . T h i s may r e s u l t from v i s i t i n g at short d i s t a n c e s on weekdays and gr e a t e r v i s i t i n g a c t i v i t y during weekends f o r d i s t a n t r e l a t i v e s . However, the p r o p o r t i o n contacted beyond ten miles i s seventeen percent lower than the p r o p o r t i o n contacted w i t h i n 0.1 to 2 miles. For f r i e n d s , there i s a steady d e c l i n e i n the p r o p o r t i o n contacted (see Fig u r e 5 where the graph f o r f r i e n d s s l o p e s l e s s s t e e p l y than f o r other r e l a t i o n s h i p t y p e s ) . The r a t e o f decrease between 0.1. to 2 miles and ten miles and beyond i s approximately 19% ( t a b l e 11). The Chi-sguare t e s t suggests t h a t 58 i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e does not e x e r t a strong e f f e c t on the p r o p o r t i o n of f r i e n d s contacted. TABLE JJ P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others 1 Contacted by Distance f o r F r i e n d s Distance i n miles and tenths o f miles 0.1-2m 2.1-4.9m 5.0-10m 10.1 + T o t a l No Contact 54.6% 55.2% 57.9% 63.2% (191) (195) (210) (143) 739 Contact 45.4% 44.8% 4 2.1% 36.8% (159) (158) (153) (83) 553 T o t a l "Tool 100% 100% 100% 350 353 363 226 1,292* •16 cases with no i n f o r m a t i o n Test o f indep: d.f.= 3; Chi-sguare = 5.0163 ( s i g l e v e l = .17) The c o n t r a s t i n the p r o p o r t i o n c o n t a c t e d by d i s t a n c e i s c l e a r i n t a b l e 12. Co-workers are moire l i k e l y t o be con t a c t e d i f they l i v e very c l o s e . Within the 0.1 t o 2 mile range, 19% of co-workers are contacted i n c o n t r a s t to 9.4% beyond the t e n mile range. T h i s r e p r e s e n t s a decrease o f more than 50%. I t may be i n f e r r e d t h a t work a s s o c i a t e s are more l i k e l y t o engage i n v i s i t i n g a c t i v i t y i f t i m e - c o s t s are m i t i g a t e d by prox i m i t y . 59 1 A I L E 12 P r o p o r t i o n of 'Others' Contacted by Distance f o r Co-workers d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths of miles (577-2ni 2Tl-479m 5~"l0m ToTT+ T o t a l No Contact 80.8% 88.7% 91.6% 90.6% (97) (244) (493) (356) 1, 190 Contact 19.2% 11.3% 8.4% 9.4% (23) (31) (45) (37) 136 T o t a l "120 275 538 393 l 7 3 2 6 * ~ *4 cases with no i n f o r m a t i o n T e s t o f indep: d.f.= 3; Chi-sguare = 17.807 ( s i g l e v e l - .00) Although i t has been p r e d i c t e d t h a t c o n t a c t d e c l i n e s with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e , the r e s u l t s from Tables 9,10,11 and 12 suggest t h a t t h i s a p p l i e s with r e l a t i v e s and co-workers o n l y . With f r i e n d s , t h e r e i s a d e c r e a s i n g r a t e of 19% between the nearest and f a r t h e s t d i s t a n c e s , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t d i s t a n c e i s not so important f o r c o n t a c t between f r i e n d s . S e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s can account f o r the r e s u l t s f o r f r i e n d s . One which f o l l o w s from the theory suggests t h a t i f f r i e n d s h i p s are s e n s i t i v e t o r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n and r e i n f o r c e m e n t , then more p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n i s r e q u i r e d t o maintain f r i e n d s h i p s . U n l i k e r e l a t i o n s h i p s with r e l a t i v e s , the c h a r a c t e r of f r i e n d s h i p s change with l a c k of i n t e r a c t i o n . More e f f o r t i s made to contact f r i e n d s e s p e c i a l l y i f one wants to keep one's f r i e n d s . Because r e l a t i o n s h i p s with k i n p e r s i s t i n 60 s p i t e of lack of i n t e r a c t i o n , the p r o p o r t i o n of k i n con t a c t e d i s more l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d by d i s t a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , c o n t a c t with co-wcrkers d e c l i n e s with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e because p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n at the work p l a c e can be e a s i l y s u b s t i t u t e d f o r v i s i t i n g i n the home. The r e s u l t s f o r the p r o p o r t i o n of f r i e n d s contacted may a l s o r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t types of f r i e n d s i n one's network. I f f r i e n d s a t g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s are considered more i n t i m a t e , then an e f f o r t i s made to keep i n touch with them. One may t h e r e f o r e s p e c u l a t e that given the temporal c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t operate d u r i n g the week, f r i e n d s at s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s may be contacted more f r e q u e n t l y but i n s h o r t d u r a t i o n . Those a t greater d i s t a n c e s are c o n t a c t e d l e s s f r e q u e n t l y but f o r a g r e a t e r d u r a t i o n of time., Another e x p l a n a t i o n a r i s e s from the assumption t h a t s o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of urban l i f e . I f m o b i l i t y i s p r e v a l e n t , then i n c r e a s e d v i s i t i n g a c t i v i t y with f r i e n d s l o c a t e d closeby as w e l l as at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s may r e f l e c t a process i n which f r i e n d s a t grea t e r d i s t a n c e s are r e l i n q u i s h e d when new f r i e n d s are e s t a b l i s h e d a t s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s . An i n d i v i d u a l may continue to maintain f r i e n d s at gr e a t e r d i s t a n c e s w h i l e s e a r c h i n g f o r new f r i e n d s w i t h i n the l o c a l area. The r e s u l t s f o r the four t a b l e s are represented g r a p h i c a l l y i n Fig u r e 5. In a l l cases, the p r o p o r t i o n contacted i s g r e a t e s t w i t h i n the s h o r t e s t d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n a week. The graphs d e p i c t r a p i d d e c l i n e i n the p r o p o r t i o n c o n t a c t e d f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e . F i g u r e 5. P r o p o r t i o n C o n t a c t e d by D i s t a n c e * by R e l a t i o n s h i p Type percent 70 I I 1 1 1— > 0.1-2m 2.1-^.9m 5-10m 10.1 Distance i n miles *This represents contact information for a week 62 For f r i e n d s the graph i s almost f l a t . One could i n t e r p r e t the graph f o r f r i e n d i n r e l a t i o n to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s d e p i c t e d i n F i g u r e 4 i n chapter 2. F i g u r e 4 suggests t h a t there are d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r f r i e n d s — o n e d i s t r i b u t i o n t h a t i s s e n s i t i v e t o d i s t a n c e and another t h a t i s not s e n s i t i v e to d i s t a n c e . The v a r i a b l e s t h a t a f f e c t f r i e n d s h i p s at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s can only be s p e c u l a t e d upon but appear t o have a confounding e f f e c t on the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e f o r c o n t a c t between f r i e n d s (as depicted i n Figure 5). Further r e s e a r c h could focus on some o f the v a r i a b l e s , a s i d e from d i s t a n c e , which i n f l u e n c e f r i e n d s h i p , Dependence of Dist a n c e on Relationship, Tyjae I t was a l s o t h e o r i z e d t h a t the d i s t a n c e one i s prepared to t r a v e l t o maintain a r e l a t i o n s h i p r e f l e c t s the b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d from a s s o c i a t i o n , . F r i e n d s h i p s , based on c h o i c e and a f f e c t i v i t y , are s e n s i t i v e to i n t e r a c t i o n and reinforcement. They tend to be l o c a t e d c l o s e s t as proximity encourages r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n . I t has been e s t a b l i s h e d that r e l a t i v e s tend t o be s p a t i a l l y d i s p e r s e d . S o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y , i n h e r e n t i n urban l i v i n g , no longer encourages or allows k i n to r e s i d e w i t h i n common bounds. However, emotional bonds between k i n , r a t h e r than d i s t a n c e , determine whether contact i s maintained. Co-workers are r e c r u i t e d from a l l over the m e t r o p o l i t a n area. The d i s t a n c e between the d w e l l i n g s of co-workers i s t h e r e f o r e expected t o be g r e a t e r than f o r f r i e n d s . D i s t a n c e s between dw e l l i n g s i s not l i k e l y to become important f o r s o c i a b i l i t y between co-workers because the work p l a c e a l l o w s workers the op p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s . Comparisons f o r the r e l a t i v e l o c a t i o n o f each r e l a t i o n s h i p type formed the next hypothesis t e s t e d . I t was hypothesized that the mean d i s t a n c e at which 'others* are l o c a t e d w i l l be s m a l l e r f o r ; f r i e n d s than f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers {Hypothesis #2). TABLE .13 Dependence of Distance on B e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths E e l . t y p e N Mean mean sgr Variance Std.Dev 1 ..Bltives 1,047 2.45 6. Q0 1.04 1.02 2. F r i e n d s 1,308 2.18 4. 75 1.07 1. 03 3. Co-wrkrs 1,330 2.7 3 7. 45 .97 .99 Grand mean 3,685 2.46 6. 03 1.08 1.-0* Etg sgr = .050 F (2,36 82) = 96.957 ( s i g l e v e l = .0 0) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f.= 2, .29698 + 8 ; F = 1.5485 ( s i g l e v e l = .21) In t a b l e 13 the mean i s a c t u a l l y the mean of the d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e transformed by the square ro o t t r a n s f o r m a t i o n . The mean square i s d e r i v e d from s g u a r i n q the mean of the transformed v a r i a b l e . Both f i g u r e s a r e r e f e r e n c e d i n a l l the one way a n a l y s i s of varia n c e t a b l e s . The mean squared i s used i n d e s c r i b i n g the s p a t i a l l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s and co-workers because i t r e p r e s e n t s a b e t t e r estimate of the mean 64 d i s t a n c e than t h a t output from the d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e untransformed.* s The summary s t a t i s t i c i n t a b l e 13 suggests t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e at p < 0.01 (F[ 2,3682] = 96.954). The mean d i s t a n c e i s s m a l l e s t f o r f r i e n d s as p r e d i c t e d i n the h y p o t h e s i s . F r i e n d s are l o c a t e d c l o s e s t , f o l l o w e d by r e l a t i v e s and then co-workers. although f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d c l o s e s t , the mean d i s t a n c e i s 4.75 miles. I f the l o c a l area i s def i n e d by a r a d i u s of one mile and the maximum d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s w i t h i n the l o c a l area i s 2 miles, then the above r e s u l t s suggest that f r i e n d s tend to be d i s t r i b u t e d o u t s i d e the l o c a l area. The e x c l u s i o n of neighbours from the a n a l y s i s may have had some e f f e c t . However, from the way neighbours were c a t e g o r i z e d i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n f e r i f the respondents were u s i n g a s p a t i a l d e l i m i t e r i n d e f i n i n g who c o n s t i t u t e d t h e i r neighbours. I t i s a l s o d i f f i c u l t to i n f e r i f the respondents saw neighbours as important sources of f r i e n d s . As i l l u s t r a t e d i n Table 2 i n chapter 2, a very s m a l l p r o p o r t i o n o f t h e neighbours were a l s o c l a s s i f i e d i n terms of f r i e n d s . There may be s e v e r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of f r i e n d s o u t s i d e the l o c a l area. One c o u l d argue that the time and energy r e g u i r e d to t r a v e l the e x t r a 3 o r 4 m i l e s i s t r i v i a l f o r t r a v e l c o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s e s p e c i a l l y i f one owns an i s s e e chapter 2 f o r d e t a i l s on p l o t t i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e p l o t t e d using the mean sguared d i s t a n c e a g a i n s t the a c t u a l d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e . 65 automobile. I t may i n v o l v e an e x t r a f i v e t o ten minutes. , A more important e x p l a n a t i o n probably l i e s i n the l a c k of s i m i l a r others within the one mile r a d i u s . K e l l e r (1962) suggests that i n d i v i d u a l s look f o r s i m i l a r and compatible others at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s i f they are are not a v a i l a b l e closeby. Or, i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h i n the l o c a l area may share some c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , but whether t h e s e are important a t t r i b u t e s f o r f r i e n d s h i p i s another i s s u e . I f these a t t r i b u t e s are not important f o r f r i e n d s h i p , i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l look f a r t h e r f o r compatible o t h e r s . To some extent, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s may r e f l e c t the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e of Vancouver where l o c a l areas i n c o r p o r a t e a much l a r g e r area than the one mile r a d i u s used i n d e f i n i n g the primary sampling u n i t s . For example, Richmond i s i d e n t i f i e d as a middle c l a s s neighbourhood as are Hest and North Vancouver. I f o p p o r t u n i t i e s a re spread over an area g r e a t e r than a h a l f mile r a d i u s , i t w i l l a f f e c t the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d . As the assumptions of the o p p o r t u n i t y argument were not t e s t e d , the r e s u l t s f o r f r i e n d s cannot be used t o i n f e r to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of op p o r t u n i t y i n the Greater Vancouver Area. The d i s t a n c e between co-workers can be i n t e r p r e t e d as p r o v i d i n g support f o r the n o t i o n t h a t they can engage i n s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s a t the work p l a c e . V i s i t i n g i s l e s s l i k e l y to occur i f i n d i v i d u a l s see each other everyday. T h i s seemed t o be confirmed i n the r e s u l t s f o r the f i r s t h y p o t hesis where the pr o p o r t i o n of co-workers contacted i n a week d e c l i n e d by over 50% between 0,1 to 2 miles and 10.1 miles and beyond. 66 Prom the l i t e r a t u r e d e a l i n g with urban systems and the e f f e c t s of s o c i a l and g e o g r a p h i c a l m o b i l i t y on the f a m i l y , one would expect r e l a t i v e s to be l o c a t e d even f u r t h e r than co-workers. Because r e l a t i v e s are l o c a t e d c l o s e r t o the average d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s , one may i n f e r t h a t i f f a m i l i e s r e l o c a t e , they do so w i t h i n d i s t a n c e s t h a t do not i n h i b i t c o n t a c t with "important" r e l a t i v e s . Dependence of Dis t a n c e on S o c i a l C l a s s f o r F r i e n d s Since s i m i l a r i t y i s important f o r f r i e n d s h i p , the theory suggests that the t i m e - c o s t - d i s t a n c e argument f o r f r i e n d s h i p i s supported t o the extent t h a t the l o c a l area provides s i m i l a r o t h e r s with whom one can be f r i e n d s . The g r e a t e r the number of s i m i l a r others the gr e a t e r the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l share common i n t e r e s t s . I f these i n t e r e s t s take them t o s i m i l a r a c t i v i t y l o c a t i o n s o u t s i d e the d w e l l i n g u n i t , there i s a g r e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y of c o n t a c t . From the number of p o t e n t i a l o t h e r s contacted a subset i s l i k e l y t o develop i n t o f r i e n d s h i p . A number of r e s e a r c h e r s have p r e d i c t e d t h a t the number of persons with whom one a s s o c i a t e s decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e from the area o f one's r e s i d e n c e . However, only under c o n d i t i o n s of homogeneity can i t be argued that areas c l o s e r t o one's r e s i d e n c e w i l l p r ovide a greater number of s i m i l a r and compatible o t h e r s , and that t h i s decreases with i n c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e . With a high degree o f homogeneity both, the time - c o s t i m p l i c a t i o n s of d i s t a n c e as w e l l as the a v a i l a b i l i t y o f s i m i l a r 67 o t h e r s , i n t e r a c t to encourage the establishment of f r i e n d s h i p s c l o s e b y . T h i s argument was then used t o examine the d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are maintained between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l c l a s s e s . I t was suggested t h a t l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s can be i n f l u e n c e d by the p o p u l a t i o n d e n s i t y w i t h i n the l o c a l area. I f homogeneity does not change but the number of people w i t h i n the same area i n c r e a s e s , then the number of s i m i l a r o t h e r s i n c r e a s e s and the number of compatible others or p o t e n t i a l f r i e n d s i n c r e a s e s , assuming t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s o f s i m i l a r s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s engage i n s i m i l a r a c t i v i t i e s which b r i n g about p o t e n t i a l c o n t a c t s i t u a t i o n s , an i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f people i n an area where homogeneity does not i n c r e a s e , l e a d s t o an i n c r e a s e i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of con t a c t and t h e r e f o r e l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s . Under these c o n d i t i o n s one i s l i k e l y to t r a v e l s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s to maintain f r i e n d s than someone who l i v e s i n a s p a r s e l y populated area of l i m i t e d o p p o r t u n i t y , o r where o p p o r t u n i t i e s e x i s t at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s , Research has shown that persons o f high SES tend t o l i v e i n low d e n s i t y areas. T h e r e f o r e i f homogeneity does not change but the number of people i n the area decreases, the number of s i m i l a r others or p o t e n t i a l f r i e n d s decreases l e a d i n g to a decrease i n the p r o b a b i l i t y o f con t a c t and a decrease i n the p r o b a b i l i t y of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s f o r persons of high SES. Assuming K e l l e r ' s argument t h a t f r i e n d s h i p s extend t o g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s when o p p o r t u n i t i e s do not e x i s t nearby, i t was hypothesized t h a t the mean d i s t a n c e a t which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d i s g r e a t e r the higher one's socioeconomic s t a t u s (Hypothesis 68 #3) . O c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . - - T h e r e s u l t s f o r t h i s h y p o t h e s i s are presented i n Table 14, A comparison between the means of d i f f e r e n t o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s groups does not show the expected p a t t e r n of d e c l i n i n g means with lower o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . The d i s t a n c e s between o c c u p a t i o n a l groups vary u n s y s t e r a a t i c a l l y , ranging between 4.19 to 5.71 m i l e s . 2ABLE J4 Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l Status f o r F r i e n d s d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths occupation ~N Mean Mean sgr Variance Std.' 1. Ma j . prop. 272 2,09 4. 39 1.01 1.01 2.Maj. P r o f . 218 2.08 4.33 . 96 .98 3.Admin. 257 2.15 4,62 1. 14 1.07 4 . S a a l l Bus. 146 2. 39 5.71 1.09 1.04 5 , C l r l / s a l e s 78 2.04 4. 19 1. 14 1.07 6.Manual 315 2.29 5. 24 1.08 1.04 Grand mean 1,286 2, 18 4.76 1.07 1.04 Eta sgr = .0116 N F{5, 1280) = 3.0159 ( s i g l e v e l * .01) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f.= 5, .13239 + 7; F = .46149 ( s i g l e v e l = . 81). The summary F s t a t i s t i c s (F (5, 1280) = 3. 0159) i n d i c a t e s t h a t o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t s t a t i s t i c a l l y f o r the d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s are maintained a t p = 0.0 1. The 69 l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s occur i n comparing the c l e r i c a l and s a l e s and the s m a l l businesses, the d i f f e r e n c e being about 1.5 m i l e s . From the unsystematic d i s t r i b u t i o n of means and the s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between them i t i s d i f f i c u l t t o i n f e r t o the importance of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s f o r d i s t a n c e t r a v e l l e d to maintain f r i e n d s . Income.--Instead o f d e c l i n i n g wth decreasing income (Table 15), the mean d i s t a n c e f o r income e f f e c t s vary i n the op p o s i t e way to the p r e d i c t e d p a t t e r n . , I n d i v i d u a l s belonging to the highest income group maintain f r i e n d s at r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s i n c o n t r a s t t o those earning the lowest income, although s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t p = 0,05, d i f f e r e n c e s between means are too s m a l l to suggest t h a t income i s important f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s . The i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s appear i n examining the va r i a n c e s f o r each income group. One of the assumptions of the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n i s t h a t the v a r i a n c e remains c o n s t a n t with the means d e f i n i n g the l o c a t i o n of the d i s t r i b u t i o n along the x-a x i s . However,the e q u a l i t y o f v a r i a n c e t e s t i n t a b l e 15 appears s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < 0.05 so t h a t the b a s i c assumptions of the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n o f equal v a r i a n c e does not h o l d . 70 TABLE 15 Dependence o f Di s t a n c e on Income f o r F r i e n d s d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Income N Mean Mean Sqr Variance Std.Dev 1. $18,000+ 269 2,02 4. 08 .85 .92 2.14 - $17,999 204 2.20 4.84 .99 .99 3 . 1 0 - $13,999 395 2.23 4.96 1.21 1. 20 4. 6 - $ 9,999 351 2.23 4.96 1.11 1.05 5. 0 - $5,999 72 2.29 5.24 1.15 1.07 Grand mean " 7 2 9 ^ 2 7 T 8 4.76 1.07 1.04 Eta sqr = .007 F(4, 1286) « 2. E q u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f {sig l e v e l = . 270 ( s i q . = 4, . 03) l e v e l = 11542 • .05) 7; F = .63 In Table 15 the l a r q e s t d i f f e r e n c e s i n v a r i a n c e occurs between those earning $18,000 and above and those e a r n i n q between $10,000 to $13,999. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n d i s t r i b u t i o n f o r the two income qroups are p l o t t e d i n F i q u r e 6, 1 6 From f i g u r e 6 one can see t h a t the shape o f the d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r the two income groups vary about a common mean. 1 6 T h e s e d i s t r i b u t i o n s are p l o t t e d the same way as d e s c r i b e d i n Chapter 2. 71 F i g u r e 6.. D i s t r i b u t i o n f o r Income Groups V a r y i n g About a Common Mean probability .51 .3* .2 $18,000 $10,000 -$13,999 2 3 Distance i n Voiles t 72 E d u c a t i o n . — T h e r e s u l t s f o r the e f f e c t s o f education on d i s t a n c e are presented i n t a b l e 16, The summary F s t a t i s t i c s {F{4 #1303) = 2.8459) i n d i c a t e s t h a t education i s s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at p < 0.05. The means are not d i s t r i b u t e d a c c o r d i n g to the p r e d i c t e d p a t t e r n of d e c l i n i n g means with d e c l i n i n g education. The d i f f e r e n c e s between the means are too s m a l l to allow any i n f e r e n c e about the importance of education f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s . Dependence of Distance on Education f o r F r i e n d s d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Education N Mean Mean Sgr Variance Std.dev I.Oniv. Degree 302 2.04 4. 16 .90 .95 2.Some univ. 196 2.20 4.86 1.14 1.07 3, Cmptd hgh sch 331 2.31 5.35 1.26 1. 12 4, Grde 9-11 321 2. 16 4.68 .98 .99 5, Grde 8/less 158 2. 19 4.77 1.01 1.01 Grand~mean 17308 ITT 8 4776 T7o7 1755 Eta sgr = . 0087 F(4, 1303) = 2. 8459 ( s i g . L e v e l = .02) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f.= 4, .21496 + 7; F = 2.7083 <sig l e v e l = .03) 73 The e q u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t i n Table 16 suggests t h a t the assumption of equal variance f o r normal d i s t r i b u t i o n does not hold f o r the e f f e c t s o f educ a t i o n . T h i s was a l s o found t o be t r u e f o r the e f f e c t s of income. The d i s t r i b u t i o n s f o r e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s showing the l a r g e s t d i f f e r e n c e s i n va r i a n c e (completed high s c h o o l and u n i v e r s i t y degree) are p l o t t e d i n F i g u r e 7. The o r d e r i n g of the s i z e of the v a r i a n c e s f o r each e d u c a t i o n a l category corresponds t o the o r d e r i n g of the s i z e of the mean. T h i s means t h a t the category with the l a r g e s t mean a l s o has d i s t a n c e d i s t r i b u t e d over the g r e a t e s t area., The three s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s are s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t f o r the mean d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d . The means do not vary i n the way p r e d i c t e d , Because of the s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s between means, i n f e r e n c e s cannot be made f o r the way these s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s a f f e c t the d i s t a n c e s a t which f r i e n d s are maintained. F i g u r e 7. D i s t r i b u t i o n o f D i s t a n c e f o r E d u c a t i o n a l Groups Showing the Mean and t h e D i s t r i b u t i o n S h i f t i n g A l o n g t h e x - a x i s 75 Dependence of Distance on S o c i a l Class for Relatives The location of r e l a t i v e s between d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l classes was considered dependent upon the amount of reliance on kin. Because individuals of lower s o c i a l classes lead a more c r i s i s -orientated l i f e and have less access to resources, they are more in c l i n e d to r e l y on kin. I f there i s th i s reliance on kin, distance must minimize time-costs to allow rapid house to house movement. It was therefore hypothesized that the mean distance at which r e l a t i v e s are located w i l l be smaller, the lower the SES.(hypothesis #4) S A i i E 17 Dependence of Distance on Occupational Status for Relatives distance i n miles and tenths Occupation N Mean Mean Sgr Variance Std.dev I.Maj Prop 174 2.44 5.95 1.20 1.09 2.Maj. Prof 162 2.42 5.85 •98 .99 3.Admin. 174 2. 53 6.39 1.00 1.00 4.Small bus. 120 •3. 39 5.72 1.25 1. 17 S.C l r l / s a l e s 82 2. 56 6.57 .91 .95 6.Manual 312 2.43 5.90 .98 .99 Grand mean 1,024 2.45 6.02 1.04 1.02 Eta Sgr = .0027 F{5, 1018) = . 54217 (sig l e v e l = .8 4) Eguality of variance test: d.f.= 5, .94829 +6; F = 1.1037 (sig l e v e l = .36) 76 Oc c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . - - T h e r e s u l t s f o r the e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s on the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r r e l a t i v e s are presented i n Table 17. O c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (F(5,1018) = .54217) suggesting that t h e r e i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n the mean between o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. Iducation.--The r e s u l t s f o r the e f f e c t s of education are expressed i n Table 18 and i t s e f f e c t s are shown t o be i n s i g n i f i c a n t . There i s no d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t a n c e a t which r e l a t i v e s are maintained between e d u c a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s , as f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , the e g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t f o r edu c a t i o n suggests t h a t there i s no d i f f e r e n c e between the v a r i a n c e s as w e l l . T A BL E 18 Dependence of Distance on Education f o r R e l a t i v e s d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Education H Mean Mean Sqr Variance Std.dev •1.0-niv degree 22 4 2.46 6.07 1.11 1.05 2.Some univ. 121 2. 41 5.79 .88 .94 a.Cmptd hgh sch 291 2.46 6.06 .96 .98 4. Grde 9-11 276 2.41 5.81 1.14 1.07 5. Grde 8 / l e s s 135 2.51 6.31 1. 08 1.04 ~Grand~mean 1,047 2745™ 1799 "l704 T 7 0 2 Eta s q r . = .0012 F(4,1042) - .30206 {sig. L e v e l = .87) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f.= 4,12770 + 7; F = 1.1058 ( s i g l e v e l = .35) 77 Income. — U n l i k e the e f f e c t s of occupation and e d u c a t i o n , income i s h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t (p < 0.01) f o r the d i s t a n c e a t which r e l a t i v e s are maintained (F (4,1019) = 3.5937)., However, the means do not decrease with lower.income, as p r e d i c t e d . D i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between those earning l e s s than 6,000 d o l l a r s and those e a r n i n g above t h i s amount. TABLE .19 Dependence of Dist a n c e on Income f o r R e l a t i v e s d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Income N Mean Mean Sqr Varian ce Std." 1. $18 , 0 0 0 * 137 2.47 6.12 1 . 2 2 1.10 2.14 - $17,999 136 2.61 6.79 1.12 1. 06 3.10 - $13,999 364 2.43 5.91 .98 .99 4. 6 - $9,999 323 2.45 6 . 0 0 .94 .97 5. 0 - $5,999 64 2.03 4.12 1 . 0 2 1.01 Grand mean 1 7 0 2 4 "1744 ~~57?5 ~ T 7 0 3 ______ Eta sqr. - .0139 F(4,1019) •= 5.5937 ( s i g . L e v e l ~ .01) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f. = 4, .69554 + 6; F = 1.0379 ( s i g . L e v e l = 0. 39) The mean f o r the lowest income group ( l e s s than $6,000), i s c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r than f o r other income groups, but approximates the mean d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d . Two i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s can be made., I f , as argued, the d i s t a n c e at which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d r e f l e c t s the time and energy t h a t one 78 i s prepared to i n v e s t i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p , then i t i s suggested that f o r those e a r n i n g l e s s than $6,000, the c o s t f a c t o r s become c r i t i c a l at the d i s t a n c e beyond the range w i t h i n which one would t r a v e l i n order t o v i s i t f r i e n d s . However, i n the above analyses, i t was maintained t h a t a t r i v i a l d i f f e r e n c e of 1 or 2 miles adds very l i t t l e to t r a v e l c o s t s . Another e x p l a n a t i o n i s t h a t the amount of income earned may be an important f a c t o r which determines how f a r one r e l o c a t e s from one's r e l a t i v e s . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t the l e s s earned, the l e s s i n c e n t i v e there i s to move f a r t h e r away from one's r e l a t i v e s . T h i s i s c o n s i s t e n t with the theory t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s with fewer res o u r c e s need to maintain r e l a t i o n s h i p s that are e a s i l y manipulable i n c r i s i s s i t u a t i o n s . R e s i d i n g w i t h i n c l o s e d i s t a n c e s ensures that k i n t i e s can be e a s i l y a c t i v a t e d , the s h o r t e r d i s t a n c e s making f o r r a p i d house to house movement. Those earning high incomes u s u a l l y do not have q u i t e so much i n v e s t e d i n k i n s h i p t i e s because the a v a i l a b i l i t y of resources allows them to depend upon secondary or i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d channels. In chapter 1 the d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r co-workers by socioeconomic s t a t u s was not c o n s i d e r e d because i t was assumed t h a t they are more l i k e l y t o i n t e r a c t r e g u l a r l y i n the work place. I t i s f e l t t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p s maintained at the work place are d i f f e r e n t from r e l a t i o n s h i p s maintained through v i s i t i n g or engaging i n common a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e the work sphere. I t was not p o s s i b l e to e s t a b l i s h from the data whether co-workers v i s i t e d each other or engaged i n common a c t i v i t i e s o u t s i d e the work sphere. However, 79 t a b l e s s i m i l a r to Ta b l e s 14 to 19 were computed f o r co-workers. Some i n f e r e n c e s are made f o r the e f f e c t s o f d i s t a n c e should v i s i t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s develop between c o - w o r k e r s . 1 7 Examination o f the t h r e e t a b l e s i n the S t a t i s t i c a l Appendix suggests t h a t occupation and education are h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t p < 0.05. Again the d i f f e r e n c e s between means are very s m a l l (ranging from 1 t o 2 miles) and a r e not l i k e l y to add t o increased t r a v e l c o s t s . T h i s a n a l y s i s has presented the r e s u l t s f o r the fou r hypotheses formulated i n cha p t e r 1., The f i r s t h ypothesis suggests that c o n t a c t i s r e l a t e d t o the d i s t a n c e a t which one's network i s l o c a t e d . , The r e s u l t s showed t h a t c o n t a c t decreased with d i s t a n c e f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers., H i t h f r i e n d s the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e on c o n t a c t i s l e s s n o t i c e a b l e . I t was suggested t h a t d i s t a n c e has l e s s e f f e c t on the p r o p o r t i o n o f f r i e n d s c o n t a c t e d because, i f f r i e n d s h i p s a r e s e n s i t i v e t o r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n and rein f o r c e m e n t , then an i n d i v i d u a l wishing t o maintain f r i e n d s i s more l i k e l y t o i n i t i a t e p e r i o d i c contact r e g a r d l e s s of d i s t a n c e . Another important f i n d i n g r e l a t e s to the l o c a t i o n o f f r i e n d s i n r e l a t i o n to r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. F r i e n d s were l o c a t e d c l o s e s t , f o l l o w e d by r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. Comparisons between t h e l o c a t i o n s of thes e r e l a t i o n s h i p types by socioeconomic s t a t u s showed t h a t the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s are not important f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e a t which r e l a t i o n s h i p s are maintained. The d i f f e r e n c e s , though 1 7 S e e s t a t i s t i c a l appendix f o r t a b l e s f o r co-workers. 80 s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , were too s m a l l i n a b s o l u t e terms to show the i n f l u e n c e of s o c i a l c l a s s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e . 81 More Complex R e l a t i o n s h i p s From the r e s u l t s presented so f a r , i t i s c l e a r t h a t r e l a t i o n s h i p type accounts f o r a l a r g e p r o p o r t i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e . In t h i s s e c t i o n , each of the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s w i l l be i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the two way a n a l y s i s of varia n c e model si m u l t a n e o u s l y with r e l a t i o n s h i p type t o examine the p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t there may be a d d i t i v e or i n t e r a c t i v e e f f e c t s between the two v a r i a b l e s . When two independent v a r i a b l e s are int r o d u c e d i n t o the model simultaneously, two p o s s i b l e s i t u a t i o n s may a r i s e . For example, i f o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the model with r e l a t i o n s h i p type, the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e may change as values of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s change and as type of r e l a t i o n s h i p changes. In t h i s case o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and r e l a t i o n s h i p type a f f e c t d i s t a n c e independently and a d d i t i v e l y . In a d d i t i o n , i n t e r e s t may be focused on how the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e i s a f f e c t e d by o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s depending upon the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p and v i c e versa. / For example, d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e with s o c i a l c l a s s may not be the same f o r a l l r e l a t i o n s h i p t y p e s o r , the d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s t a n c e f o r each r e l a t i o n s h i p type may not be the same f o r a l l o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s groups. I n t h i s case t h e r e i s s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and type of r e l a t i o n s h i p i n r e l a t i o n to d i s t a n c e . I n t r o d u c i n g t h i s i n t e r a c t i o n parameter i n t o the model r e s u l t s i n the f a m i l i a r equation used i n a two way a n a l y s i s of variance model: u ^ = u + dl + f>j * * i j where r e f e r s t o the o v e r a l l e f f e c t o f o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and 82 r e l a t i o n s h i p type, the mean e f f e c t due to s o c i a l c l a s s , (2>J the mean e f f e c t due r e l a t i o n s h i p type and tfjj the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two independent v a r i a b l e s . The programs used i n the f o l l o w i n g a n a l y s i s a l s o generate a summary t a b l e that enables one to examine the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of t h e f o u r s e t s of parameters i n the model. In t h i s way, one i s able t o d i s t i n g u i s h the model which best e x p l a i n s the data. For example t a b l e 20 r e p r e s e n t s a summary t a b l e comparing the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and r e l a t i o n s h i p type on d i s t a n c e . 83 TABLE 20 Summary ANOVA of the E f f e c t s of Oc c u p a t i o n a l Status and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distanc e No i n t e r a c t i o n I n t e r a c t i o n Cause d7fT~ SS ------- - --- ----1. <a> 5 6.79 1.36 0.19 5.27 1.02 0.14 2. 2 197.60 98.80 13.96 195.93 97.97 13.81 3. 10 34.80 3.48 0.49 4. 17 237.52 13.97 1.97 5 3622 25692.56 7.09 6. 3639 25929.83 No i n t e r a c t i o n t e s t s are F (5,36347 and F~l2^363lJ ~ <a>the c a t e g o r i e s o f t h i s t a b l e are as f o l l o w s : 1 = o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , 2 = r e l type 3 = i n t e r a c t i o n , 4 = between sum of squares, 5 = w i t h i n sum of squares, 6 = t o t a l sum of squares, In i n t e r p r e t i n g t a b l e 20, one f i r s t examines to see i f the i n t e r a c t i o n model i s the best model f o r the data. D i v i d i n g the mean sum of sguares f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter by the mean sum of squares f o r the w i t h i n sum of squares (variance f o r the f u l l model) r e s u l t s i n the F r a t i o f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter. The value of F ( i n t h i s case 0.50) i s looked up i n a t a b l e of F values with 10 and 3622 degrees of freedom i n order to check f o r s i g n i f i c a n c e . As t h i s i s not s i g n i f i c a n t , the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter can be l e f t out of the model l e a v i n g us 84 with the no i n t e r a c t i o n model. Comparisons are then made between the main e f f e c t s i n the no i n t e r a c t i o n model., The mean sum of squares f o r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s d i v i d e d by the mean sum of squares of the complete model (within sum of squares). The r e s u l t i n g F value i s again looked up i n the F t a b l e with 5 and 362 2 degrees of freedom. Occ u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s not s i g n i f i c a n t and can be l e f t out. T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g f o r the one way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e of d i s t a n c e with o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , not c o n t r o l l i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p type, o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s was not s i g n i f i c a n t . * a The best model i s t h e r e f o r e the one way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e model with r e l a t i o n s h i p type as the independent v a r i a b l e . Tables 21 (A), (B) and (C) re p r e s e n t the mean e f f e c t s of r e l a t i o n s h i p type and o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s on d i s t a n c e (21(A)), the mean o c c u p a t i o n a l e f f e c t s with the e f f e c t s of r e l a t i o n s h i p type removed (Table 21(B)) and, the mean r e l a t i o n s h i p type e f f e c t s with o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s e f f e c t s removed (Table 21(C)) r e s p e c t i v e l y . Since both, o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter can be removed from the model, one should r e f e r to the one way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e f o r the e f f e c t s of type of r e l a t i o n s h i p on d i s t a n c e . i a S e e s t a t i s t i c a l appendix f o r t a b l e D 85 E f f e c t s of Oc c u p a t i o n a l Status and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e (A) O v e r a l l E f f e c t s of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type and O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s mean d i s t a n c e i n miles and te n t h s occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1. Major prop 2. 44 2. 08 2. 86 (174) (272) (334) 2. Major prof 2.41 2. 07 2.71 (162) (218) (219) 3. Adminis. 2.52 2. 14 2. 83 (174) (257) (266) 4. Small bus 2.39 2.38 2. 64 (120) (146) (136) 5. C l e r i c a l / 2.56 2. 04 2. 70 s a l e s (82) (78) (69) 6. Manual 2.42 2.28 2.54 (312) (315) (306) Mean = 2.44 *no o f o b s e r v a t i o n per c e l l i n parenthesis (B) Mean Occ u p a t i o n a l E f f e c t s with R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s Removed 1. Major prof 0.024 2. flajor p r o f -0.052 3. Adminis. 0.050 4. Small bus. 0.027 5. C l e r i c a l -0.014 s a l e s 6. Manual -0.034 (C) Mean R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s with O c c u p a t i o n a l Status E f f e c t s Removed 1. R e l a t i v e s 2. F r i e n d s 3. Co-wrkrs 0.002 -0.277 0. 275 86 Table 22 compares models when income and r e l a t i o n s h i p type are i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the two way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e model simultaneously. Using the method d e s c r i b e d f o r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of Table 20, one can compare the e f f e c t s of the t h r e e parameters i n the model. The F s t a t i s t i c suggest that the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter i s not s i g n i f i c a n t and can t h e r e f o r e be removed from the model. S i m i l a r l y income can be removed from the a d d i t i v e model l e a v i n g type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p to e x p l a i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e . However, when income was int r o d u c e d i n the one way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e (not c o n t r o l l i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p type) i t was h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t p = 0.01. 1 9 l 9 S e e s t a t i s t i c a l appendix Table F 87 TABLE 22 Summary ANOVA of the E f f e c t s of Income and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Distance No i n t e r a c t i o n I n t e r a c t i o n i Cause d7f7 SS IsS F SS l i s " 1. <a> 4 6.93 1.73 0.24 5.78 1.44 0.20 2. 2 198.50 99.25 14.08 197.34 98.67; 13.97 3. 8 22.73 2.84 0.40 4. 14 227.00 16.21 2.30 5 3610 25501.76 7.06 6,, 3624 25728.76 N o ~ i n t e r a c t i o n ~ t e s t s ~ a r e ~ F l 2 7 3 6 2 2 r _ a <a)the c a t e g o r i e s of t h i s t a b l e are as f o l l o w s : 1 = income, 2 = r e l type 3 = i n t e r a c t i o n , 4 = between sum of sguares, 5 = w i t h i n sum of squares, 6 •= t o t a l sum of squares. The disappearance of any a s s o c i a t i o n between income and d i s t a n c e when r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s in t r o d u c e d i n t o the model suggest t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between income and d i s t a n c e i s spu r i o u s . D i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e with income were caused by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type which v a r i e s with income. The parameter values f o r income and r e l a t i o n s h i p type from the two way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e s are presented i n t a b l e 23. f 88 TABLE 23 E f f e c t s of Income and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance (A) O v e r a l l E f f e c t s of Income and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type mean d i s t a n c e i n miles and te n t h s income R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1. $18,000* 2.47 2.02 2.80 (137) (269) (242) 2. 14 - $17,999 2.61 2. 20 2.81 (136) (204) (186) 3.10 - $13,999 2.43 2.23 2.67 (364) (395) (4 47) 4. 6 - $9,999 2.45 2. 23 2.73 (323) (351) (3 55) 5. ,0 - $5,999 2.03 2.29 2.80 (64) (72) (50) Mean = 2. 44 •no of ob s e r v a t i o n per c e l l i n par e n t h e s i s (B) Mean Income E f f e c t s with R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s Removed 1. $18,000+ -0.030 2. $14 - $17,999 0.085 3. $10 - $13,999 0.004 4. $6 - $9,999 0.024 5. 0 - $5,999 -0.075 (C) Mean R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s with Income E f f e c t s Removed 1. R e l a t i v e s -0.012 2. F r i e n d s -0.270 3. Co-workers 0.282 89 When income and r e l a t i o n s h i p type are int r o d u c e d i n t o the model the mean d i s t a n c e values f o r income a r e c o n s i d e r a b l y reduced i n comparison t o the mean values i n the one way t a b l e s . To compare d i f f e r e n c e s i n mean income e f f e c t s with and without c o n t r o l l i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p type one simply takes the mean f o r each income category and s u b t r a c t s t h i s from the grand mean. The d i f f e r e n c e s from the grand mean i n t a b l e F i n the s t a t i s t i c a l appendix are then compared to the parameter values i n T a b l e 23 (B) . Table 24 demonstrates t h a t there has been a s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n the income parameter value when r e l a t i o n s h i p type has been c o n t r o l l e d . T h i s r e d u c t i o n i n parameter value i s b e t t e r i l l u s t r a t e d i n comparing t h e mean income e f f e c t s sguared. The r e d u c t i o n i n the parameter value when r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s c o n t r o l l e d suggests t h a t a l a r g e p o r t i o n o f the d i f f e r e n c e i n di s t a n c e with income i s e x p l a i n e d by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p type which v a r i e s with income. The r e d u c t i o n i n parameter value i s i n d i c a t e d i n the s m a l l e r F value f o r the two way t a b l e s . „ 90 TABLE 24 Comparing Mean Income E f f e c t s With and Without C o n t r o l l i n g f o r Type of R e l a t i o n s h i p C o n t r o l l i n g R eltype Reltype not c o n t r o l l e d d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Income Mean Mean sgd Mean Mean sgd. 1. $ 1 8 , 000 - 0 . 0 3 0 - 0 . 1 4 0 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 4 5 0 2. $14 - $ 1 7 , 9 9 9 0 . 0 8 5 0 . 4 5 0 0. 050 0 . 2 5 0 3. $10 - $ 1 3 , 9 9 9 - 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 0 4 0 4 . $6 - $ 9 , 9 9 9 0 . 1 0 0 0 . 1 0 0 0 .06 0 0 . 3 1 0 5 . o - $ 5 , 9 9 9 - 0 . 0 7 5 - 0 . 3 3 0 - 0 . 0 1 0 - 0 . 4 5 0 S i m i l a r comparisons can be made between parameter values i n t a b l e 23(C) and those c a l c u l a t e d from t a b l e 13. There i s very l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e between the parameter v a l u e s i n t h i s case. The r e s u l t s f o r education are s i m i l a r to t h a t f o r income. Comparisons between the i n t e r a c t i o n and no i n t e r a c t i o n model (Table 25) shows t h a t the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . S i m i l a r l y , i n the no i n t e r a c t i o n model educ a t i o n i s i n s i g n i f i c a n t and can t h e r e f o r e be removed from the model. 91 TABLE 25 Summary ANOVA of the E f f e c t s o f Education and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f Distance No i n t e r a c t i o n I n t e r a c t i o n Cause dTfT" SS MSS F~ SS MSS* 1.<a? 4 11.68 2.92 .41 8.59 2.15 0.30 2., 2 199.25 99.62 14. 11 196.15 98.08 13. 86 3., 8 16.16 2.02 0.29 4. 14 224.00 16.00 2.26 5 3670 25969.53 7.08 6. 3684 2619 3.53 ___„_______„_„„„_ <a? the c a t e g o r i e s o f t h i s t a b l e are as f o l l o w s : 1 = educ a t i o n , 2 = r e l type 3 = i n t e r a c t i o n , 4 = between sum of sguares, 5 = w i t h i n sum o f sguares, 6 = t o t a l sum of sguares. , I f parameter values s i m i l a r to Tab l e 24 were c a l c u l a t e d f o r e ducation e f f e c t s , one would n o t i c e a s i g n i f i c a n t r e d u c t i o n i n the parameter values when r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s c o n t r o l l e d . The s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o educa t i o n (apparent i n t a b l e G i n the s t a t i s t i c a l appendix) disappears when type.of r e l a t i o n s h i p i s i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the model sugges t i n g t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between educ a t i o n and d i s t a n c e i s sp u r i o u s . A l a r g e p o r t i o n of 92 th,e d i f f e r e n c e i n d i s t a n c e with education i s e x p l a i n a b l e by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type which v a r i e s with education. The r e s u l t s f o r the two way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e s are presented below. 93 TABLE 26 E f f e c t s o f Education and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of Distance (A) O v e r a l l E f f e c t s of Educat i o n and R e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and ten t h s education R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1. Univ degree 2.46 2.04 2.78 (224) (302) (250) 2.Some univ. 2.41 2.21 2.68 (121) (196) (189) 3.compltd hgh sch. 2.46 2.31 2. 81 (291) (331) (365) 4.Grade 9 - 1 1 2.41 2.16 2. 73 (276) (321) (383) 5.Grade 8 or l e s s 2.51 2.19 2. 49 (135) (158) (143) Mean = 2.44 • no of observat i o n per c e l l i n parenthesis (B) Mean Education E f f e c t s with R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s Removed 1. Univ degree -0.025 2. Some univ -0.007 3. Cmptd hgh sch. 0.086 4. Grade 9 - 1 1 -0.008 6. Grade 8 or l e s s -0.047 (C) Mean R e l a t i o n s h i p Type E f f e c t s with E d u c a t i o n a l E f f e c t s Removed 1. R e l a t i v e s -0.006 2. F r i e n d s -0.270 3. Co-workers 0.276 94 Effect o f S o c i a l C l a s s on Ty_£e of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n the Network The two way a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e t a b l e s presented above demonstrate that the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s have l i t t l e s i g n i f i c a n c e the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e . Education and income were s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t when int r o d u c e d i n t o the one way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e s independently (see s t a t i s t i c a l appendix). However, when they were i n t r o d u c e d one a t a time i n t o the model si m u l t a n e o u s l y with r e l a t i o n s h i p type, the s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s disappeared s u g g e s t i n g t h a t the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between income and d i s t a n c e and educa t i o n and d i s t a n c e were s p u r i o u s . In comparing the mean values of income and educa t i o n with and without c o n t r o l l i n g f o r r e l a t i o n s h i p type, t h e r e was a s u b s t a n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n the parameter values of education and income when r e l a t i o n s h i p type was c o n t r o l l e d . The s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d to income and education were i n f a c t caused by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p type which v a r i e s with income and education., T h i s suggests t h a t i n s t e a d of the t h e o r i z e d model: d i s t a n c e ' SES > r e l . Type Ihat e x i s t s i s the model: SES ycel. type ^ d i s t a n c e 9 5 T h i s s e c t i o n o f t h e a n a l y s i s w i l l examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s and type of r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the network. T h i s a n a l y s i s i s based on the l o g i s t i c model. As i n the a n a l y s i s presented b e f o r e , the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s w i l l be co n s i d e r e d one a t a time and then two at a time t o check f o r i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s between the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s . L i k e the two way a n a l y s i s of varia n c e based on the normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , the l o g i s t i c model i s a l s o extended by the i n t r o d u c t i o n of a second v a r i a b l e . Where every value o f the independent v a r i a b l e produces a change i n the shape of the dependent v a r i a b l e the l o g i s t i c model takes the form: where rep r e s e n t s the average over both s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s , oCJg^ , the e f f e c t due to the f i r s t s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e , the e f f e c t due to the second s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e and Ifyn the i n t e r a c t i o n between the two. QSSiJBiiioSlI s t a t u s . --Table 27 shows th a t while o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s unimportant f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e . I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type. From the patte r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of negative and p o s i t i v e alpha values i n t a b l e 2 7, one may i n f e r that the upper o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r i e s (major p r o p r i e t o r s , major p r o f e s s i o n a l and a d m i n i s t r a t i v e ) show a g r e a t e r than average odds of having co-workers as compared to r e l a t i v e s i n t h e i r networks. The t h r e e lower o c c u p a t i o n a l groups (owners of small businesses, c l e r i c a l and s a l e s and manual workers) show the oppo s i t e e f f e c t : a g r e a t e r than average odds of having r e l a t i v e s 96 and a l e s s than average odds of having co-workers i n the network. There i s l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of odds f o r f r i e n d s between o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. T h i s i s i n d i c a t e d by the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l s i z e of the alpha v a l u e s a c r o s s o c c u p a t i o n a l groups i n t h i s column. l i l O 27 E f f e c t of O c c u p a t i o n a l Status on Type of R e l a t i o n s h i p i n the Network type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-wrkers 1.Haj.prop -0.219 -0.003 0.222 2. Ma j . prof -0.050 0.007 0.043 3.Adminis. -0.108 0.041 0.0 66 4.Small bus. 0.012 0.031 -0.043 5 . C l e r i c a l 0.242 -0. 054 -0.188 6 .Manual 0.123 -0.022 -0.100 Mean -0.107 0.047 0.060 X2{10) = 44. 8282 N = 3803 These comparisons can be made more s p e c i f i c by a c t u a l l y c a l c u l a t i n g the odds from the alpha values i n t a b l e 27. , In comparing any two c a t e g o r i e s the odds are c a l c u l a t e d by e x p o n e n t i a t i o n of t h e d i f f e r e n c e between the alpha values which transforms the odds back from the l o g a r i t h m i c s c a l e . , I f t h i s i s 97 Then m u l t i p l i e d by the average odds, the r e s u l t i n g f i g u r e r e p r e s e n t s the r a t i o of observed f r e g u e n c i e s . However, i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are u s u a l l y made on the b a s i s o f the alpha values and the pa t t e r n o f the s i g n s {see chapter 2 ) . For example, the d i f f e r e n c e from the average odds f o r an i n d i v i d u a l i n o c c u p a t i o n a l category 1 (major p r o p r i e t o r s ) having r e l a t i v e s versus co-workers i n the network are e < - ° . 2 1 9 5 - ( 0 , 2 2 2 ) = 0,643 to one. For manual workers the odds o f having r e l a t i v e s versus co-wcrkers i n the network are e<°. i z 3 ) - c - o . 1 0 0 ) = 1.24 to one. Th i s l a t t e r value i s twice the odds o f t h a t c a l c u l a t e d f o r the major p r o p r i e t o r s . T h i s can be i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t the manual workers i n comparison to the major p r o p r i e t o r s have twice the average odds o f having r e l a t i v e s versus co-workers i n the network., In the same way any two c a t e g o r i e s i n the t a b l e can be compared through a computation of the odds. In the f o l l o w i n g t a b l e the f i r s t column r e p r e s e n t s t h e d i f f e r e n c e from the average odds of having r e l a t i v e s versus co-workers i n the network f o r each o c c u p a t i o n a l group; the second column r e p r e s e n t s the d i f f e r e n c e from the average odds f o r having f r i e n d s versus co-workers i n the network f o r each o c c u p a t i o n a l group. 98 TABLE 28 Comparing Odds, of Having Relatives/Co-workers and F r i e n d s / C o -workers i n the Network f o r each O c c u p a t i o n a l Group type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Occupation R l t i v e s / c o - w r k r s Friends/co-wrkrs •1. Ha j . Prop .643 .799 2. Haj. Prof .911 .964 3. adminis. .840 .975 4.Small bus. 1.056 1.079 5. C l e r i c a l / s a l e s 1.537 1.143 6. Manual 1.250 1.081 Comparisons can be made i n two d i r e c t i o n s - down the columns or across the rows. A l a r g e number of p o s s i b l e comparisons r e s u l t i f every p o s s i b l e p a i r w i s e combination i s considered., For t h i s reason odds f o r the remaining t a b l e s w i l l not be c a l c u l a t e d . Instead t h i s p r e s e n t a t i o n w i l l i n t e r p r e t patterns of e f f e c t as represented by the p a t t e r n o f d i s t r i b u t i o n o f negative and p o s i t i v e alpha values. R e s u l t s i n Tables 27 and 28 support the p o s t u l a t e t h a t s i m i l a r i t y as the b a s i s of a s s o c i a t i o n becomes more important the higher one*s socioeconomic s t a t u s . C a l c u l a t i o n of odds show that persons o f high o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s show g r e a t e r than 99 Average odds f o r having work a s s o c i a t e s i n the network. In c o n t r a s t i n d i v i d u a l s of lower o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s demonstrate g r e a t e r than average odds of having r e l a t i v e s i n the network. These f i n d i n g s a l s o s u b s t a n t i a t e some of Goldthorpe's (1968) rese a r c h i n which i n f o r m a l exchange and mutual v i s i t i n g amongst work a s s o c i a t e s were more l i k e l y to occur between those i n the upper o c c u p a t i o n a l groups. The 'working c l a s s ' who he suggests stayed or were a t t r a c t e d t o t h e i r work mainly f o r economic advantages d i d not t r y to compensate f o r i n h e r e n t l y u n s a t i s f y i n g work by b u i l d i n g up rewarding r e l a t i o n s h i p s with work a s s o c i a t e s . For t h i s group of people work as the realm of the necessary was set c l e a r l y a p a r t from the non-work, the realm of r e l a t i v e freedom. .  Income .---the r e s u l t s f o r income i n Table 29 correspond somewhat t o the r e s u l t s f o r o c c u p t i o n a l s t a t u s . . The p a t t e r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o s i t i v e and n e g a t i v e alpha s i g n s suggest that the high income groups (14,000+) show l e s s than average odds o f having r e l a t i v e s i n t h e network i n c o n t r a s t to those i n the lower income groups. C o r r e s p o n d i n g l y , these high income groups show g r e a t e r odds f o r having co-workers as members of the network. These r e s u l t s are very s i m i l a r to the l a s t a n a l y s i s . 100 TABLE 29 E f f e c t of Income on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p Rel type R e l a t i v e s F r i e n ds Co-wrkrs 1. $18,000 -0. 236 2. 14 - $17,999 -0.091 3. 10 - $13,999 0.031 4. 6 - $9,999 0.090 5. 0 - $5,999 0.207 Mean " -0.119 0. 130 0.04 3 -0. 152 -0.071 0.050 0.093 0.107 0.048 0.121 -0.019 -0.257 0.027 X 2 { 8 ) = 41. 1954 N = 3,970 The d i s t r i b u t i o n of odds f o r f r i e n d s a c r o s s income groups i s somewhat p e c u l i a r . Persons of high income (14,000+) show great e r than average odds of having f r i e n d s as w e l l as co-workers i n the network. Below t h i s income c a t e g o r y , only those earning l e s s than $6,000 show g r e a t e r than average odds of having f r i e n d s . I t may be speculated t h a t f r i e n d s f o r the low income group are more l i k e l y t o be l o c a t e d i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the respondent. Goldthorpe (1964) has shown t h a t when r e l a t i v e s cannot p r o v i d e the b a s i s of s o c i a l l i f e , the poor u s u a l l y seek support from persons l i v i n g i n the same area. Educa£ion.--Table 30 shows the e f f e c t s o f e d u c a t i o n i n determining type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p i n the netwok. Although s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t (X 2{8) = 20.2968), the unsystematic 101 d i s t r i b u t i o n of the p o s i t i v e and negative alpha v a l u e s make i t d i f f i c u l t to draw any c o n c l u s i o n s about the s o c i o l o g i c a l importance of ed u c a t i o n f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type. TABLE 30 E f f e c t o f Educat i o n on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p Education R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-wrkrs L U n i v degree 0.020 0.0 53 -0.074 2.Some univ. -0.171 0.092 0.079 3.Cmpltd hgh sch 0.071 -0.076 0.005 4.Grade 9 - 1 1 -0.010 -0.082 0.092 Grade 8 or l e s s 0.089 0.013 -0.102 Mean -0.129 0.006 0.06 3 X 2 (8) = 20.2968 N = 3854 The next s e c t i o n of the a n a l y s i s combines the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s , two a t a time, i n order t o examine i f th e r e i s s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r a c t i o n between the independent v a r i a b l e s i n r e l a t i o n t o r e l a t i o n s h i p type. T h i s w i l l allow us t o examine i the e f f e c t of one v a r i a b l e w i t h the e f f e c t s of the second v a r i a b l e removed. From t h i s one can not onl y examine the e f f e c t s of each independent v a r i a b l e but a l s o the r e l a t i v e importance of any i n t e r a c t i o n between independent v a r i a b l e s . T h i s a n a l y s i s i s based on t h e extended l o g i s t i c model. 102 As i n the two way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e where a summary t a b l e compares models, Table 31 compares the main e f f e c t s model with the . i n t e r a c t i o n model with o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s and income as independent v a r i a b l e s . , The Chi-sguare t e s t suggests that the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter i s not s i g n i f i c a n t . I t can be l e f t out from the model. TABLE 31 Comparison Of Models H i t h Occupation And Income As Independent V a r i a b l e s R e l a t i o n s h i p Chi-sguare D.f. S i g . occup x r e l . t y p e 39.9062 10 0.01 income x r e l . t y p e 25.9062 8 0.01 occup x income x r e l . t y p e 49.961 40 Table 32(i) shows the e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s on the type of r e l a t i o n s h i p i n a network with income e f f e c t s removed; t a b l e 3 1 ( i i ) the e f f e c t s of income on type o f r e l a t i o n s h i p with the e f f e c t s of occupation removed. I f each of the t a b l e s 32 (i) arid 3 2 ( i i ) are compared t o the matrices computed i n the o r i g i n a l two way t a b l e s , (Tables 27 and 29), the i n t e r r e l a t i o n of t h e s e main e f f e c t s can be assessed. For example, comparing t a b l e 3 2 ( i ) to t a b l e 27 shows t h a t t h e r e i s only a s l i g h t decrease i n the parameter values i n t a b l e 32 ( i ) . T h i s shows up i n the r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l decrease i n the Chi-sguare 103 value when comparing these two t a b l e s {44.83 and 39.91). This means t h a t c a l c u l a t i o n s of the odds r a t i o f o r purposes of comparing c a t e g o r i e s i n t h i s new t a b l e w i l l not produce r e s u l t s v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t from t h a t o f t a b l e 27—the odds of an i n d i v i d u a l i n o c c u p a t i o n a l c a t e g o r y 1 having r e l a t i v e s versus co-workers i n the network i s .644 to one i n t a b l e 32 {i) and .625 to one i n t a b l e 27. There i s no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the two odds values. From t h i s one can i n f e r t h a t the e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s on r e l a t i o n s h i p type are independent of income. TABLE 32 E f f e c t of Occupation and Income on the D i s t r i b u t i o n of R e l a t i o n s h i p Type (i) E f f e c t of O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s with income E f f e c t s Removed type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1. fiaj Prop -0.166 -0.109 0.274 2. , Maj. Prof -0.016 -0.065 0.081 3. „ Adminis. -0.132 -0.069 0.063 4. Small bus. , -0.004 0.034 -0.029 5. C l r c l / s a l e s 0.243 0.021 -0.264 6. Manual 0.076 0.049 -0.125 Mean -0.129 0.088 0.041 X 2 ( 1 0 ) - 39.9062 104 ( i i ) E f f e c t of Income with O c c u p a t i o n a l E f f e c t s Removed type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Income R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s co-workers •1. $18, 000 -0.138 0.204 -0.066 2. $14 - $17,999 0.017 0.073 -0.089 3. $10 - $13,999 0.065 -0.152 0.087 4. $6 - $9,999 0.074 -0.094 0.020 5. 0 - $5,999 -0.018 -0.030 0.048 Hean -0.129 0.088 0.041 X*{8) = 25.9062 In the same way 3 2 ( i i ) i s compared to Table 29 i n order t o e s t a b l i s h the extent to which the e f f e c t s of income on type of r e l a t i o n s h i p are connnected with o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . The comparison shows s e v e r a l i n t e r e s t i n g trends. F i r s t , t h e r e i s a sharp decrease i n some of the alpha values and second, the pat t e r n of d i s t r i b u t i o n of p o s i t i v e and negative s i g n s have a l s o changed. The changes i n the parameter values are suggested by the change i n the Chi-sguare value when o c c u p a t i o n a l e f f e c t s are removed. The Chi-sguare value i s reduced from 41.19 to 25.91. In d i s c u s s i n g the r e s u l t s f o r Table 29, i t was mentioned that while high income groups ($14,000+) showed g r e a t e r than average odds of having f r i e n d s i n the network, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of odds of income groups e a r n i n g l e s s than $14,000 was i n c o n s i s t e n t i n that those e a r n i n g l e s s than $6,000 a l s o showed greater than average odds of maintaining t i e s with f r i e n d s . 105 With the e f f e c t s of occupation removed se see t h a t the odds o f high income groups having f r i e n d s have i n c r e a s e d . , For income groups ea r n i n g below $14,000, the odds have decreased - the decrease being most n o t i c e a b l e f o r those earning l e s s than $6,000 {from 0.050 to -0.030). These r e s u l t s show that a s s o c i a t i n g with f r i e n d s i s r e l a t e d t o high income. For the lowest income group having f r i e n d s i n the network i s r e l a t e d t o o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . another i n t e r e s t i n g change when o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s i s removed i s t h a t those e a r n i n g low income show an i n c r e a s e i n odds of having co-workers and a decrease i n odds f o r having r e l a t i v e s i n the network. S i m i l a r l y , persons e a r n i n g high income show a decrease i n odds f o r co-workers and an i n c r e a s e i n odds f o r r e l a t i v e s . These r e s u l t s suggest t h a t a s s o c i a t i n g with r e l a t i v e s and co-workers tend to be r e l a t e d t o o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . The d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of co-workers and r e l a t i v e s f o r d i f f e r e n t income groups can be reduced t o o c c u p a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Education was a l s o i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the model with o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s to examine t h e i r r e l a t i v e e f f e c t s on r e l a t i o n s h i p type. The summary t a b l e 33 again shows the i n t e r a c t i o n parameter to be i n s i g n i f i c a n t . I t t h e r e f o r e l e a v e s us with the a d d i t i v e model. 106 TABLE 33 Comparison Of flodels With Occupation And Education As Independent V a r i a b l e s R e l a t i o n s h i p Chi-sguare D. f . sig. , Occup X Rel.type 48.8438 10 0.01 Eductn X Rel.type 23.2968 8 0.01 Occup X Eductn X Rel.type 56.1133 40 Tables 34 (i) and 3 4 ( i i ) g i v e t h e parameter values of the e f f e c t s of occupation with the e f f e c t s of edu c a t i o n removed and the e f f e c t s o f education with the e f f e c t s of occupation removed r e s p e c t i v e l y . Comparing these matrices with the matrices of the o r i g i n a l two way t a b l e s w i l l give us the r e l a t i v e e f f e c t of occupation and educ a t i o n cn type of r e l a t i o n s h i p . TABLE 34 E f f e c t s of Occupation and Education on the D i s t r i b u t i o n o f R e l a t i o n s h i p Type (i) E f f e c t o f Occupation with Education E f f e c t s Removed type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Occupation R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers 1.Maj.prop -0.222 -0.011 0.232 2. Ma j . Prof -0.118 -0.030 0. 148 3. Adminis,, -0.092 0.044 0.047 4, Small bus. 0.005 0.030 -0.035 5. C l r c l / s a l e s 0.265 -0.031 -0.234 6. Manual 0. 162 -0.003 -0.158 Mean -0.126 0.066 0.059 X*(10) = 48.843 8 108 ( i i ) E f f e c t s of Education with O c c u p a t i o n a l E f f e c t s Removed type of r e l a t i o n s h i p Education R e l a t i v e s F r i e n d s Co-workers I.Oniv degree 0. 130 0.063 -0.193 2, Some univ -0.127 0.082 0.045 3.Cmptd Hgh Sch 0.077 -0.090 0.013 4.Grde 9 - 1 1 -0.035 -0.075 0. 110 5.Grde or l e s s -0.126 0.066 0.059 He an -0.126 0.066 0.059 X 2 (8) = 23.298 Comparisons between 34 (i) and t a b l e 27 show a s l i g h t i n c r e a s e i n the c h i - s g u a r e values i n t a b l e 34(i) f o r the e f f e c t s of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s when the e f f e c t s o f education a r e removed (48. 83 and 44.84). The alpha values have changed very s l i g h t l y , suggesting t h a t o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a f f e c t s the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type independently of education. Comparisons between t a b l e s 3 4 ( i i ) and t a b l e 30 i n d i c a t e changes i n alpha values only f o r those with the lowest and hi g h e s t e d u c a t i o n f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. K i t h the e f f e c t s o f oc c u p a t i o n c o n t r o l l e d , those with the h i g h e s t e d u c a t i o n show an i n c r e a s e i n odds f o r ma i n t a i n i n g t i e s with r e l a t i v e s and a corresponding decrease of odds f o r maintaining t i e s with co-workers. For those with l e s s than 109 Grade 8 educa t i o n , t h e change i n alpha values suggest a decrease i n odds of maintaining t i e s with r e l a t i v e s and an i n c r e a s e i n the odds f o r having co-workers i n the network. However, the i n s i g n i f i c a n t change i n the c h i - s g u a r e value (20,30 and 23.30) i n d i c a t e that education tends t o a f f e c t type of r e l a t i o n s h i p independently of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . From these r e s u l t s i t may be concluded t h a t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p type with o c c u p a t i o n are not e x p l a i n a b l e by d i f f e r e n c e s i n income and e d u c a t i o n . However, d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e l a t i o n s h i p type with income are e x p l a i n a b l e , to a s i g n i f i c a n t extent, by o c c u p a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Education appears t o operate i n d e p e n d e n t l y of o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s . While the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s were not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r d i s t a n c e , they were important i n e x p l a i n i n g the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type. The s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e a t t r i b u t e d t o the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s f o r the d i s t a n c e v a r i a b l e were i n f a c t caused by d i f f e r e n c e s i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type which v a r i e s with the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s . I t seems t h a t these s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s c r e a t e important d i f f e r e n c e s which become manifest i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type i n the network. 110 Summary and l a t e r p r e t a t i o n S e v e r a l f i n d i n g s have been presented and d i s c u s s e d i n t h i s a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s f o r the f i r s t hypothesis, r e l a t i n g to the time-cost d i s t a n c e argument, provide support f o r the theory which s t a t e s t h a t temporal c o n t r a i n t s determine the d i s t a n c e t h a t one may t r a v e l i n order to maintain a s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers., Dista n c e exerted l e s s i n f l u e n c e on the p r o p o r t i o n of f r i e n d s contacted.. I f , as argued, f r i e n d s h i p s depend upon p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , then an i n d i v i d u a l i s l i k e l y t o i n i t i a t e c o n t a c t with h i s f r i e n d s l o c a t e d nearby as wel l as a t g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s . The time-cost arguments f o r di s t a n c e apply more t o r e l a t i v e s and co-workers because i n the former, the r e l a t i o n s h i p p e r s i s t s i n s p i t e o f l a c k of i n t e r a c t i o n ; i n the l a t t e r , p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n a t the work pla c e can be e a s i l y s u b s t i t u t e d f o r v i s i t i n g i n the home. The l o c a t i o n s of f r i e n d s , i n comparison to r e l a t i v e s and co-workers, may have i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the d i s t a n c e that one i s prepared t o t r a v e l t o maintain f r i e n d s h i p s . I t i s speculated t h a t at d i s t a n c e s w i t h i n 4.75 m i l e s , c o s t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s are i n s i g n i f i c a n t f o r t r a v e l t o v i s i t with f r i e n d s . Beyond t h i s range, when c o s t f a c t o r s become c r i t i c a l , a d i s t a n t f r i e n d may be r e p l a c e d by one l i v i n g nearby., I f an i n d i v i d u a l has l i m i t e d time and i s f o r c e d t o v i s i t w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s , then i t may be i n f e r r e d that a p r o p o r t i o n o f f r i e n d s l i v i n g at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s are r e l i n q u i s h e d o r , a s t a t e of ' » P a s s i v e f r i e n d s h i p " i s maintained. Sometimes, when i n d i v i d u a l s are l o c a t e d beyond the c u t o f f p o i n t , r e l a t i o n s h i p s can s t i l l be maintained by a s h i f t away from v i s i t i n g a t each other's homes to engage i n 111 common a c t i v i t i e s at l o c a t i o n s a c c e s s i b l e to both p a r t i c i p a n t s . The way d i s t a n c e i n f l u e n c e s a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i t s frequency, d u r a t i o n and t i m i n g , between i n d i v i d u a l s warrants f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . Another s p e c u l a t i o n stemming from the l o c a t i o n o f f r i e n d s i s t h a t the op p o r t u n i t y to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s w i t h i n c l o s e ranges i s probably very low i n the Greater Vancouver Area. K e l l e r suggests t h a t only when t h i s o p p o r t u n i t y i s hot a v a i l a b l e c l o s e b y w i l l i n d i v i d u a l s t r a v e l g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s to e s t a b l i s h f r i e n d s . Or, the f i n d i n g s may r e f l e c t the s p a t i a l s t r u c t u r e of Vancouver which i s made up of l a r g e supposedly homogeneously areas. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of op p o r t u n i t y over a l a r g e r s u r f a c e then i n f l u e n c e s the l o c a t i o n at which f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d . The r e s u l t s f o r s o c i a l c l a s s , although not p r e d i c t e d , should not be s u r p r i s i n g given the context of North American s o c i e t y which i s h e a v i l y automobile o r i e n t e d . Where access t o the automobile and other modes of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s l e s s of a c l a s s r e l a t e d phenomenon, d i s t a n c e i s a l s o l e s s l i k e l y t o have any s o c i o l o g i c a l i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r behaviour. The r e l e v a n c e of s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type i s important i n t h a t i t r e i n f o r c e s Goldthorpe's f i n d i n g s amongst workers i n England. I t suggests t h a t while North Americans of d i f f e r e n t SES do not d i f f e r much from each other ( i . e . , E c o n o m i c a l l y ) , o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s , income and ed u c a t i o n c r e a t e d i f f e r e n c e s which become v i s i b l e through a s s o c i a t i o n . 112 CHAPTER 4 I CONCLUSION This chapter w i l l summarize the p r i n c i p a l findings of t h i s t h e s i s , and consider the implications of these findings for planning. i t w i l l also examine some of the weaknesses of the study and suggest areas of possible future research. With a large proportion of the population moving to c i t i e s , planners and administrators concentrate on accommodating the increases through maximum expansion of the physical structure of the c i t y . The major concern has been with business, industry, t r a f f i c and transportation. Much of the important areas of a c t i v i t y , especially those which bring people together, have been l e f t out either through lack of information or on the assumption that once the physical setting has been provided, the s o c i a l l i f e of urbanites i s immediately enhanced. The intention of t h i s study was to discover the influence of the urban s o c i a l and s p a t i a l environment on urban contact patterns, there were four p r i n c i p a l findings i n t h i s research. These w i l l be summarized before th e i r implications for planning are considered. 113 ££il£iEli F i n d i n g s F i r s t , i n r e l a t i o n to the l o c a t i o n of v i s i t i n g a c t i v i t y , i t was hypothesized t h a t the p r o p o r t i o n of •others' c o n t a c t e d i n a week i n c r e a s e d with d e c r e a s i n g d i s t a n c e . The r e s u l t s suggested t h a t the t i m e - c o s t - d i s t a n c e argument f o r c o n t a c t a p p l i e s more to r e l a t i v e s and co-workers than f r i e n d s . . The e x p l a n a t i o n which l o g i c a l l y f o l l o w s from the theory i s t h a t i f f r i e n d s are s e n s i t i v e to r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n and r e i n f o r c e m e n t , then c o n t a c t i s more l i k e l y to be i n i t i a t e d r e g a r d l e s s of d i s t a n c e , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e r e i s a d e s i r e t o maintain f r i e n d s h i p s . With r e l a t i v e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p p e r s i s t s i n s p i t e of a d e c l i n e i n i n t e r a c t i o n . S i m i l a r l y the p r o p o r t i o n of co-workers co n t a c t e d d e c l i n e d with d i s t a n c e . One reason given i s that co-workers have the o p p o r t u n i t y t o engage i n common a c t i v i t i e s a t the work pla c e . Contact a t work can be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r v i s i t i n g i n the home e s p e c i a l l y i f d i s t a n c e between d w e l l i n g i s g r e a t . The second s e t o f f i n d i n g s compared the s p a t i a l l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s t o t h a t of r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. Although f r i e n d s were l o c a t e d c l o s e s t , the average d i s t a n c e was 4.75 miles and other s o c i a l c a t e g o r i e s were l o c a t e d beyond t h i s . The t h i r d f i n d i n g r e l a t e d the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s to the d i s t r i b u t i o n of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s , r e l a t i v e s and co-workers. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f d i s t a n c e f o r each r e l a t i o n s h i p type d i d not vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y between s o c i a l c l a s s e s . The d i f f e r e n c e s between the means were so s m a l l t h a t they would h a r d l y have added to the c o s t of t r a v e l . Even when there was s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e between the SES v a r i a b l e s and d i s t a n c e . 114 t h i s s i g n i f i c a n c e disappeared when r e l a t i o n s h i p type was i n t r o d u c e d i n t o the model, suggesting a s p u r i o u s connection between the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s and d i s t a n c e . The f o u r t h s e t of f i n d i n g s examines the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the s o c i a l c l a s s v a r i a b l e s and the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type i n the network. The r e s u l t s showed t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s i n the upper s o c i a l c l a s s e s were more l i k e l y t o a s s o c i a t e with co-workers and f r i e n d s , the lower s o c i a l c l a s s e s v i s i t e d more with r e l a t i v e s , and t o some e x t e n t f r i e n d s . The two way a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e t a b l e s i n t h i s s e c t i o n demonstrated t h a t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type with income were e x p l a i n a b l e , t o a s i g n i f i c a n t e x t e n t , by o c c u p a t i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s . Education as w e l l as o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a f f e c t e d the d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e l a t i o n s h i p type independently. I m p l i c a t i o n s of F i n d i n g s f o r Planning The r e s u l t t h a t i s d i f f i c u l t to r e c o n c i l e i n t h i s study i s that i n d i v i d u a l s show a gr e a t e r p r o b a b i l i t y of v i s i t i n g w i t h i n very short d i s t a n c e s ; yet f r i e n d s are l o c a t e d at a mean d i s t a n c e of 4.75 m i l e s — o u t s i d e the l o c a l area as defined i n t h i s study. Although the assumptions i n the o p p o r t u n i t y argument have not been s y s t e m a t i c a l l y t e s t e d i n t h i s study, one may i n f e r from the r e s u l t s t h a t t h e r e i s a l a c k of s i m i l a r and compatible o t h e r s with whom one can be f r i e n d s w i t h i n short d i s t a n c e s . I f f r i e n d s h i p s are based on c h o i c e and r e q u i r e r e g u l a r i n t e r a c t i o n , one would expect f r i e n d s t o be l o c a t e d w i t h i n very sho r t d i s t a n c e s . , The r e s u l t s showed t h i s not to be the case--115 f r i e n d s h i p are l o c a t e d at gr e a t e r d i s t a n c e s and maintained through p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n r e q u i r i n g t r a v e l . The r e s u l t s f o r the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s has important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the pl a n n i n g o f neighbourhoods e s p e c i a l l y s i n c e the energy c r i s i s , With the p r i c e o f energy d i c t a t i n g the d i s t a n c e s one may t r a v e l t o maintain r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the i s s u e becomes one of p r o v i d i n g o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r f r i e n d s w i t h i n a c c e s s i b l e d i s t a n c e s so t h a t a "sense of community" i s preserved through i n f o r m a l c o n t a c t between people. A sense of community u s u a l l y e v o l v e s as a r e s u l t o f a high degree of involvement on the part o f the i n d i v i d u a l s r e s i d i n g w i t h i n the l o c a l a r ea. I f the involvement stems from f r i e n d s h i p and c o m p a t i b i l i t y between r e s i d e n t s , and f r i e n d s h i p s a r i s e from s i m i l a r i t y , then the not i o n of homogeneity versus h e t e r o g e n e i t y become important f o r planning. From the l i m i t e d evidence presented i n t h i s study, one may i n f e r t h a t homogeneity w i t h i n l o c a l area i s more l i k e l y to l e a d to a 'sense of community* f o r s e v e r a l reasons. An i n c r e a s e i n the number of o p p o r t u n i t i e s f o r i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n l o c a l areas i n c r e a s e s the p r o b a b i l i t y o f c o n t a c t with compatible others . The number of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s may then i n f l u e n c e the degree of l o c a l area involvement. Homogeneity a l s o i n c r e a s e s t h i s sense of community by i n c r e a s i n g the b a s i s of support f o r l o c a l l y based o r g a n i z a t i o n s . In heterogeneous communities, l o c a l l y based o r g a n i z a t i o n s do not become i n i t i a t e d , as o f t e n , the s u r v i v a l o f these o r g a n i z a t i o n s dpends upon a broad b a s i s o f support. I n d i v i d u a l s i n such communities are f o r c e d to look to other communities f o r f r i e n d s and the s a t i s f a c t i o n of needs. 116 Heterogeneous areas where r e s i d e n t s look to o t h e r areas f o r f r i e n d s and community p a r t i c i p a t i o n a r e more l i k e l y t o resemble apartment areas, Where access t o the automobile i s widespread, and the p r i c e of energy cheap, l i v i n g i n a heterogeneous area may be of l i t t l e conseguence f o r the automobile a l l o w s one to p a r t i c i p a t e i n s p e c i a l i z e d networks. S i n c e the energy c r i s i s , however, i t i s f o r s e e a b l e t h a t only a s e l e c t few w i l l have access t o the automobile. The o p t i o n s f o r the lower s o c i a l c l a s s e s maintaining s p e c i a l i z e d networks a t g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s w i l l be d r a s t i c a l l y reduced. The l a c k of o p p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p w i t h i n s h o r t d i s t a n c e s and the l a c k of c o n t r o l over r e s o u r c e s a l l o w i n g s p e c i a l i z e d networks at greater d i s t a n c e s has i m p l i c a t i o n s of i s o l a t i o n f o r persons of low socioeconomic s t a t u s . The changing r e l a t i o n s h i p between socioeconomic s t a t u s and d i s t a n c e i s l i k e l y to i n f l u e n c e the s p e c i a l i z a t i o n of networks w i t h i n the l o c a l area, e s p e c i a l l y f o r the lower s o c i a l c l a s s e s . As i n d i v i d u a l s of lower s o c i a l c l a s s e s show a g r e a t e r p r o p e n s i t y to a s s o c i a t e with r e l a t i v e s , i n c r e a s i n g c o s t s can e i t h e r reduce c o n t a c t between r e l a t i v e s or f o r c e r e l a t i v e s to l i v e c l o s e to each other so t h a t c o n t a c t i s maintained. I f t h i s occurs, there w i l l be a c o n s i d e r a b l e o v e r l a p between who one r e f e r s to as f r i e n d s , neighbours or r e l a t i v e s as i n Young and W i l l m o t t ' s (1960) d e s c r i p t i o n of networks i n East London. With the i n c r e a s i n g energy c o s t s , r e l i a n c e on p u b l i c t r a n s i t i s l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e . Any r e v i s i o n or change i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n i s l i k e l y t o i n f l u e n c e the s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n 117 of c i t i e s . P u b l i c t r a n s i t i s u s u a l l y designed on a r a d i a l p a t t e r n . T h i s means t h a t v i s i t i n g , which i n v o l v e s l a t e r a l movement, w i l l r e q u i r e much more t r a v e l time. L a t e r a l movement i s not l i k e l y to be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p l a n n i n g because of the c o s t s and the present c r i t e r i a used f o r p o l i c y planning:—developments i n t r a n s p o r t a t i o n are designed to move people from one area to a f u n c t i o n a l l y more s p e c i a l i z e d area such as, from r e s i d e n c e to work. The s o c i a l a s p e c t s of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n are h a r d l y ever taken i n t o c o n s i d e r a t i o n . T h i s i s not s u r p r i s i n g because th e area of i n f o r m a l s o c i a l networks presents great d i f f i c u l t i e s , e s p e c i a l l y m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y . , In c o n c l u s i o n , i t may be s t a t e d t h a t the automobile, which at one time i n f l u e n c e d the s t r o n g outward spread and sprawl of the c i t y may yet be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r i t s r e t u r n t o former s p a t i a l p a t t e r n of small communities c l u s t e r e d about the main t r a n s p o r t a t i o n r o u t e s . . L i m i t a t i o n s of the Study There are weaknesses both i n the theory and methods of t h i s t h e s i s . & major c r i t i c i s m of the theory i s t h a t the assumptions r e l a t i n g to the o p p o r t u n i t y argument, on which the hypotheses were based, have not been t e s t e d . The mean d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s was c l o s e r than t h a t f o r r e l a t i v e s and co-workers but f r i e n d s were l o c a t e d approximately f i v e m iles away. Unless the p o s t u l a t e s of the o p p o r t u n i t y argument are t e s t e d , one cannot i n f e r from the f i n d i n g s to the a c t u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h i n the Greater Vancouver area. To i n f e r to the 118 d i s t r i b u t i o n of oppo r t u n i t y one would have t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t g r e a t e r o p p o r t u n i t y d e n s i t y encourages f r i e n d s h i p s a t nearer l o c a t i o n s i n c o n t r a s t to areas of l e s s e r o p p o r t u n i t y . T h i s study a l s o makes the assumption t h a t s i m i l a r i t y i s an important b a s i s of f r i e n d s h i p but no evidence i s provided t h a t t h i s i s so. I t i s assumed t h a t s i n c e s i m i l a r i t y i s important f o r f r i e n d s h i p the degree o f s i m i l a r i t y w i t h i n a p o p u l a t i o n d e f i n e s the op p o r t u n i t y f o r f r i e n d s h i p . , Before d e a l i n g with the op p o r t u n i t y argument one would have t o e s t a b l i s h t h a t s i m i l a r i t y i s indeed important f o r f r i e n d s h i p . The degree of s i m i l a r i t y and what combination o f s i m i l a r i t y v a r i a b l e s are r e q u i r e d f o r the f r i e n d s h i p process i s a l s o connected with the o p p o r t u n i t y argument. Weakness i n the theory can a l s o be found i n the argument r e l a t i n g c o n t a c t to d i s t a n c e . The argument made f o r the r e s u l t s was that because f r i e n d s h i p s are s e n s i t i v e t o i n t e r a c t i o n , an i n d i v i d u a l was more l i k e l y to i n t i a t e contact with f r i e n d s r e g a r d l e s s of d i s t a n c e . The maintenance of f r i e n d s h i p s nearby as w e l l as at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s may r e f l e c t a process i n which a search f o r new f r i e n d s goes on with i n c l o s e d i s t a n c e s and when these become e s t a b l i s h e d f r i e n d s at gr e a t e r d i s t a n c e s are r e l i n g u i s h e d . To show the d e c l i n e i n c o n t a c t with f r i e n d s at g r e a t e r d i s t a n c e s , one needs data c o l l e c t e d over a g r e a t e r p e r i o d of time. The data used i n t h i s study i n v o l v e s c o n t a c t a c t i v i t y the week before the i n t e r v i e w with the respondents. Another weakness l i e s i n the i m p l i c i t assumption that f r i e n d s are given up when t i m e - c o s t s become gr e a t . The bi-modal d i s t r i b u t i o n of of d i s t a n c e f o r f r i e n d s (see graph i n chapter 2) 119 suggests that u r b a n i t e s maintain t s o types of f r i e n d s — o n e which i s s e n s i t i v e to d i s t a n c e and another s e t which i n d i c a t e the importance of f a c t o r s confounding the e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e . I f f r i e n d s h i p s depend upon p e r i o d i c i n t e r a c t i o n , then i t i s important t o explore i f d i s t a n t l o c a t i o n s are r e l a t e d t o such v a r i a b l e s as l e n g t h of time a f r i e n d s h i p has been maintained. The way l o c a t i o n i n f l u e n c e s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n component of f r i e n d s h i p has a l s o been ignored i n t h i s study. I t i s important to e s t a b l i s h how d i s t a n c e i n f l u e n c e s the d u r a t i o n , frequency and tim i n g of i n t e r a c t i o n . There were s e v e r a l weaknesses i n the methods used i n t h i s t h e s i s . I t was mentioned t h a t although couples formed the b a s i s of t h e sample, t h i s a n a l y s i s was t r e a t e d f o r males o n l y . The extent t o which the behaviour of the males of the sample i s r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the average household cannot be i n f e r r e d from the data. The r e s u l t s provide l i t t l e i n f o r m a t i o n on how temporal and s p a t i a l c o n s t r a i n t s a f f e c t d i f f e r e n t members of the household d i f f e r e n t l y . A separate a n a l y s i s f o r the females would have provided some comparison. To do t h i s however, one would have t o c r e a t e a da t a s e t with household c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s attached to i n d i v i d u a l s o p e r a t i n g out of i t . Because of the purposive sampling d e s i g n , and the c r i t e r i a used to sample the p o p u l a t i o n , the f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study are not g e n e r a l i z a b l e t o the p o p u l a t i o n of the G r e a t e r Vancouver Area. The i n f e r e n c e s are r e s t r i c t e d t o p o p u l a t i o n s of the sm a l l e r e c o l o g i c a l areas and w i t h i n t h i s , to males who are married with c h i l d r e n , with a t l e a s t one a d u l t member of the household i n the labour f o r c e . 120 Although i n d i v i d u a l s were sampled, the t h e s i s uses the r e l a t i o n s h i p s o f the i n d i v i d u a l s as the u n i t o f a n a l y s i s . The r e s u l t s are then d e s c r i b e d i n terms of the i n d i v i d u a l s . The r e p e t i t i o n of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondent a g a i n s t each member of h i s network, to c r e a t e the r e l a t i o n s h i p r e c o r d , must have some d i s t o r t i n g e f f e c t on the r e s u l t and the extent t o which i t can be i n f e r r e d to the i n d i v i d u a l . J u s t what there a re and whether they they can be d e a l t with given a v a i l a b l e methods i n s t a t i s t i c s can onl y be s p e c u l a t e d . As yet there have been no attempts to sample r e l a t i o n s h i p s when networks are s t u d i e d . C r i t i c i s m s can a l s o be aimed at the assumption that the r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t i s an important l o c a t i o n f o r s o c i a l c o n t a c t between i n d i v i d u a l s . I t was assumed t h a t i f the respondents knew the exact address o f the * o t h e r s * , then the p r o b a b i l i t y i s very high t h a t there was mutual v i s i t i n g at the d w e l l i n g u n i t at some time during the f r i e n d s h i p . , I f l a f l S S l i Q a S £QL Further Research F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should c o n c e n t r a t e on v e r i f y i n g i f the d i s t r i b u t i o n c f o p p o r t u n i t y w i t h i n l o c a l areas a f f e c t s the l o c a t i o n of f r i e n d s . I f i t does, t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n may be u s e f u l f o r planners concerned with not only p r o v i d i n g the p h y s i c a l s e t t i n g but a l s o , the o p p o r t u n i t y f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n l o c a l areas. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of o p p o r t u n i t y can be e a s i l y c o n t r o l l e d through zoning, housing permits, housing types and so on. The s i m i l a r i t y argument i s very c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o the opp o r t u n i t y argument. Before d e a l i n g with the o p p o r t u n i t y 121 argument one would have t o t e s t out the assumption that s i m i l a r i t y i s important f o r f r i e n d s h i p and to e l i c i t the s i m i l a r i t y v a r i a b l e s which may be important f o r f r i e n d s h i p and t h e r e f o r e the o p p o r t u n i t y argument. While t h i s t h e s i s examines the time-space c o n t r a i n t s on the l o c a t i o n of s o c i a l networks, f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h should i n v e s t i g a t e how l o c a t i o n a f f e c t s both, the frequency as w e l l as the d u r a t i o n o f v i s i t s between i n d i v i d u a l s . Or, the number of l o c a l area f r i e n d s h i p s f o r i n d i v i d u a l s may be compared by l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n a l o c a l area.. T h i s may provide some i n s i g h t i n t o the process of how f r i e n d s are dropped from the network and new ones i n c l u d e d . Another area of p o s s i b l e r e s e a r c h i s the extent t o which d i s t a n c e a f f e c t s the nature and extent of a c t i v i t y p a r t i c i p a t i o n between i n d i v i d u a l s . Does pr o x i m i t y encourage i n d i v i d u a l s t o engage i n a m u l t i p l i c i t y of a c t i v i t i e s , or do they continue t o be s p e c i a l i z e d ? The e f f e c t s of d i s t a n c e together with the modifying e f f e c t s of the of the automobile c o u l d be used to e xplore the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i s t a n c e and the m u l t i p l i c i t y of s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . 122 BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, Bert N. Ki n s h i p i n an Urban S e t t i n g , Chicago: .Markham P u b l i s h i n g Co.~1968. Adams, Bert n. " I n t e r a c t i o n Theory and the S o c i a l Network". Sociometry, Vo l . 30 No 1 (March, 1967), 64-78. Anderson, J. "Space-time Budgets and A c t i v i t y S t u d i e s i n Urban Geography and Planning", Environment ajid P l a n n i n g . Vol, 3 (1971) , 353-368. / Anderson, T. ,K. " S o c i a l and Economic F a c t o r s A f f e c t i n g the L o c a t i o n of R e s i d e n t i a l Neighbourhoods", Papers of the Regional Science A s s o c i a t i o n . V o l . 9 (1962), 161-170. Athanasiou, R. And Yoshioka, G. A. "The S p a t i a l C h aracter o f F r i e n d s h i p Formation", Environment and Behaviour, (March, 1973), 43-66., Axelrod, M. "Urban S t r u c t u r e and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , American S o c i g l g g i c a 1 Review, V o l . 21 (1956), 13-18, Becker, G.,S. "A Theory of the A l l o c a t i o n of Time", Economic-Journal, Vo l . 75 (1965), 493-517. B e l l , W. And Boat, M. "Urban Neighbourhoods and Informal S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s " , American J o u r n a l o f Sociolo.gy_» V o l . 62 (January, 1957}, 391-398., Beshers, J . M. Urban S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Bev i s , H. "A Model P r e d i c t i n g Urban T r a v e l P a t t e r n s " . J o u r n a l of American I n s t i t u t e of Planners. V o l . 25 (1959), 87-89. ~ 123 Bossevain , J . F r i e n d s of F r i e n d s , B r i s t o l : Western P r i n t i n g S e r v i c e s , 1974. B o t t , E. Z a j D i i l and S o c i a l Networks. London: T a v i s t o c k P u b l i s h i n g Co. 1951. Brown, L. A. And Moore, E. G. "Urban Acquaintance F i e l d s : An E v a l u a t i o n of a S p a t i a l Model", Environment and P l a n n i n g . V o l . 2 (1970), 443-454. Brown, L. A., Homes, J. And Jakubs, J . F. " A c t i v i t y Systems a P l a n n i n g Context", Edra floceedings. J . Archer and E. Eastman (eds.), P e n n s ylvania, 1970.. Buchanan, C. T r a f f i c i n Towns. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1964., Caplcw, T. And foreman, F. "Neighbourhood I n t e r a c t i o n i n a Homogeneous Community", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. V o l . 15 (1950), 357-366. Carey, L. And Mapes, R. Tbe S o c i o l o g y of Planning. London: B. T. B a t s f o r d L t d . , 1973. C a r r o l l , J . D. And Bev i s , H. W. " P r e d i c t i n g L o c a l T r a v e l i n Urban Regions", Papers of the Regional Science A s s o c i a t i o n , Vol. 3 (1957), 183-197. ~ Connel, J. " S o c i a l Networks i n Urban S o c i e t y " , S o c i a l P a t t e r n s i n C i t i e s . B. D. C l a r k and M. B. Gleave (ed s . ) , London: I n s t i t u t e of B r i t i s h Geographers, 1973, 41-52. Cox, K. R. "The Genesis of Acquaintance F i e l d S p a t i a l S t r u c t u r e : A Conceptual Model and E m p i r i c a l T e s t " , B e h a v i o u r a l Problems Geography,;. A Symposium, K. , R. , Cox and G. Golldege (eds), Evanston, I l l i n o i s : Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y (Dept. Of Geography), 1969. 124 Chapin, F. S. And Logan, T. H. Pa t t e r n s of Time and Space Use", The Quality, of the Urban Environment, P e r l o f f , H. S. (ed.),, B a l t i m o r e : John Hopkins P r e s s , 1969. Chapin, F. S. And B r a i l , R. K. " A c t i v i t y P a t t e r n s of Urban Residents", Environment and Behaviour. V o l . 5 (1973), 163-190. Chapin, F. , S. J r . " A c t i v i t y Systems and Urban S t r u c t u r e : A Working S t r u c t u r e " , J o u r n a l of American S t i t u t e of Planners, V o l . 34 (1968), 11-18. Chapin, F. S, J r . Human A c t i v i t y P a t t e r n s i n the C i t y . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974. , Dacey, M. F. "Two Dimensional Urban Contact F i e l d s " , Geographical-i s a l i s i s , V o l . 3 (1971), 109-120. Dodd, C. D. "The I n t e r a c t a n c e Hypothesis: A G r a v i t y Model F i t t i n g Masses and Human Groups",- A merle an S o c i o j l o g i c a l Review., V o l . 15 (1950), 245-256. Fava, S. F. "Contrast i n Neighbouring: New York C i t y and a Suburban Community", the suburban community. W. M. D o b r i n e r ( e d . ) , New York: Putnam Press, 1958. F e s t i n g e r , L., Schacter, S. And Back, K. S o c i a l Pressures i n Informal Groups, S t a n f o r d , C a l i f : Stanford Univ. Press, 1950. F i r t h , R. (ed.) Two S t u d i e s o f K i n s h i p i n London, London: Athlone P r e s s , 1956. ~ 125 F o r r e s t , J . " S p a t i a l Aspects of Urban S o c i a l T r a v e l " , Urban S t u d i e s ^ V o l . 11 no.,3 (October, 1974), 302-313. Gans, H. J . The Urban V i l l a g e r s . New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1962. Gans, H. J , People and Plans. New York: B a s i c Books, 1968. Goldthorpe, J . H. The A f f l u e n t Worker: I n d u s t r i a l A t t i t u d e s and Behaviour. London: Cambridge Univ. P r e s s , 1964. Greer, S. ' The Emerging-City.1 Myth and Reality,. New York: The Free Press, 1962. Greer, S. " D i s p e r s i o n and the C u l t u r e of Urban San", Urban S u r v i v a l and T r a f f i c . (the proceedings of a symposium organized by the Department o f C i v i l E n g i n e e r i n g , A r c h i t e c t u r e and Town and Country Planning, i n c o l l a b o r a t i o n with the Roads Campaign C o u n c i l , A p r i l 10-14, 1961), London: E. And F. N. Spon, 1962, 60-69. Greer, G. And O r l e a n s , P. "The Mass S o c i e t y and the P a r a p o l i t i c a l S t r u c t u r e " , American S o c i p l q g i c a 1 Review. V o l . 27 {1962), 634-646. Gray, G. A. "The E f f e c t s o f Temporal M a r g i n a l i t y upon S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n " , Unpublished Phd. D i s s e r t a t i o n , U n i v e r s i t y of Oregon, 1968. Granovetter, M. S. "The Strength o f Weak T i e s " , American Journa.1 gf S o c i o l o g y , V o l . 78 (Way, 1913) , 1360-1380."" 126 H a l l , E. " T r a v e l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f Two San Diego S u b d i v i s i o n Developments", Highway Research Board B u l l e t i n , no. 203 (1958) , 1-19. ~ H i l l , D. M. And Dodd, N. " T r a v e l Mode S p l i t Assignment Programs", Highway-l e s e a r c h Record, V o l . 347 (1962), 290-301. H i l l , D. M. And Dodd, N. "Studies o f Trends o f T r a v e l Between 1954-1964 i n a Large M e t r o p o l i t a n Area", Highway. Research Record. No. 141 (1966) , 1-23. Hagerstrand, T. "Aspects o f the S p a t i a l S t r u c t u r e of S o c i a l Communication and the D i f f u s i o n o f Innovation", Papers-of the Regional Science A s s g c i a t i o n . Vol. 16 (1966), 27-42. Hagerstrand, T. Innovation D i f f u s i g n as a S p a t i a l Process. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1967. Hagerstrand, T. "What About People i n the Re g i o n a l S c i e n c e " , Papers of i l j e Regional -Science- A s s o c i a t i o n , v o l . 24 (1970) , 7-21. Homans, G. C. The Human Group. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1950. Hortcn, F. E. And Reynolds, D, R. " E f f e c t s of Urban S p a t i a l S t r u c t u r e on I n d i v i d u a l Behaviour". Economic Geography. V o l . 47 (January, 1971), 36-4 8. I k l e , F. C. " S o c i o l o g i c a l R e l a t i o n s h i p of T r a f f i c t o P o p u l a t i o n and Distance", T r a f f i c Q u a r t e r l y , V o l . 8 (1954), 123-126. J o n e s , F . L . Dimensions of Urban S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e . Toronto: U n i v e r s i t y of Toronto P r e s s , 1969. 127 Johnson, R. J . Urban R e s i d e n t i a l P a t t e r n s , Great B r i t a i n : b e l l and sons, 1971. Johnston, B. J . "Mental Maps of the C i t y " , Environment a n d P l a n n i n g , V o l . 3 (1971), 63-72. K e l l e r , S. I. The Urban:ge^ghbj^ur&good.;. A S o g i o l o g i c a l P M S f i e ^ t i y e , New york: random house, 1968. Lynch, K. Th§ Image o f The City.. Cambridge: M. I. ,T. - P r e s s , 1970. Lindsey, J . K. Inf er e n c e s from S o c i o l o g i c a l Survey Data; A; On i f l e d Approach. Amsterdam: E l s e v i e r , 1973. Lindsey, J . K. "The Study of S o c i a l C l a s s as a Q u a l i t a t i v e V a r i a b l e " , p u b l i s h e d i n French i n revue f r a n c a i s e de s o c i p l o g i e . V o l . X v i i i no. 2 ( A p r i l - J u n e , 1977)7 233-27^. Lindsey, J . K. Primary Education Bombay; I n t r g d u c t i g n t o a-- S o c i a l Survey. London: Pergamon press, 1978. Litwak, E. And S z e l e n y i , I. , "Primary Group S t r u c t u r e and T h e i r F u n c t i o n s ; K i n , Neighbours and Friends",: American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 34 (August, 1969), 465-4817 Lee, T. "Perceived Distance as a Function of D i r e c t i o n i n the C i t y " , Environment and P l a n n i n g . V o l . 2 (June, 1970), 40-52. Lansing, J. B,, Marans, R. .And Zehner, R. B. Planned R e s i d e n t i a l Environments. U n i v e r s i t y of Michigan: B r a u n - B r u n f i e l d Co., 1970. Laumann, E. 0. Bonds of P j u r a l i s m . ,New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1973. 128 Mowrer, E. R. "The Family i n Suburbia", The Suburban Community, Dobriner, W. (ed.), New York: Putnam~Press, 1958, 147-164. Meier, R. L. A Communications Theory of Orban Growth. Cambridge ( J o i n t Center f o r Urban S t u d i e s ) ! M. I7T7 P r e s s , 1962. Moore, H. E. Man^ Time and S o c i e t y . New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1963. Michelson, W. H. Man and H i s Urban Environment. Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1970. Moore, E. J. "Some S p a t i a l P r o p e r t i e s of Urban Contact F i e l d s " , Geojgrajpjiical A n a l y s i s , V o l . 2 (1970), 376-386. McCall, G. J . „, S o c i a l R e l a t i o n s h i p s . Chicago: A l d i n e P u b l i s h i n g Co., 1970. Mercer, D. C. " D i s c r e t i o n a r y T r a v e l Behaviour and the Urban Mental Maps", A u s t r a l i a n G eographical S t u d i e s . V o l . Ix (1974), 133-143. M i t c h e l l , J . C. S o c i a l Networks i n Urban S i t u a t i o n s . Manchester: Manchester U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. Newcombe, T. M. "The P r e d i c t i o n of I n t e r p e r s o n a l A t t r a c t i o n " , American P s y c h o l o g i s t , V o l . 11 (1956), 575-586., Olsson, G. Distance and Human I n t e r a c t i o n ^ A Review and B i b l i o q r a p h y f P h i l a d e l p h i a : Regional Science Research I n s t i t u t e (Geography S e r i e s No. 2, 1965). 129 Pahl, R. E. Patterns of flrban L i f e . London: Longman Green and Co., 1970. " Reeder, L. G. " S o c i a l D i f f e r e n t i a l s i n Mode of T r a v e l , Time and Cost i n the Journey t o Work", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review. V o l . 21 (1956), 56-63. Rushton, G. " A n a l y s i s of S p a t i a l Behaviour by Revealed Space P r e f e r e n c e s " , Annals of A s s o c i a t i o n o f A m e r i c a n Ge.ograp.hy, Vol. 59 (June, 1960), 391-400. S t o u f f e r , S. A. " I n t e r v e n i n g O p p o rtunity: A Theory R e l a t i n g M o b i l i t y and Di s t a n c e " , American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, Vol. 5 No 6 (December, 1940), 845-867./ Seeley, J . R., Sims, fi. A. And Looseley, E. W. Cr e s t wood Heights: Jt Study o f the C u l t u r e of Suburban i i f e . New York: Basic Books~*C0., 1956. ~ ~* "~ Smith, J . , Form, W. H. And Stone, G, P. L o c a l Intimacy i n a M i d d l e - s i z e d C i t y " , American J o u r n a l °I S o c i o l o s y , {November, 1954), 276-284." S t u t z , F. P. " S p a t i a l A n a l y s i s o f Urban I n t e r - R e s i d e n t i a l S o c i a l T r i p Flows", Unpublished P'h'd. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Michigan S t a t e U n i v e r i t y (Dept of Geography, 1970). S t u t z , F. P. "Distance and Network E f f e c t s on Urban S o c i a l T r a v e l F i e l d s " , Economic Geography. V o l . 49 (1973), 134-144., Suss man, M. Marriage and the Family. Houghton. M i f f l i n Co., 1968. Tomeh, A. K., "Informal Group P a r t i c i p a t i o n i a n d R e s i d e n t i a l P a t t e r n s " , American J o u r n a l of S o c i o l o g y , v o l . 70 (1964), 28-35. 1 Thornlinson, R. ilJ ^ i l S S t r u c t u r e : The s o c i a l and S p a t i a l Character o f C i t i e s . New York: Random House, 1969. Wirth, L. "Urbaniso as a Say o f L i f e " , American J o u r n a l p.f Soc i o l o g y , vol.,44 ( J u l y , 1938), 1-24. Webber, M. M, "The Urban Pl a c e and The Non Place Realm", E x g l o r a t i o n s i n Urban S t r u c t u r e . P h i l a d e l p h i a : U. Of Penn. Press, 19647 ~ Jefcber, M. C u l t u r e , T e r r i t o r i a l i t y and The E l a s t i c M i l e " , Papers o f the Regional S c i e n c e A s s o c i a t i o n , V o l . 13 {1964), 59-69. wolpert, J . "Behavioural Aspects o f t h e D e c i s i o n to Mi g r a t e " . Papers of the Re g i o n a l Science A s s o c i a t i o n , V ol. 15 (1965) ,159-172." wheeler, J . 0. Research on the Journey, t o Worki &n I n t r o d u c t i o n and Ii k i i 2 a £ a £ i l l ' No. 65, M o n t i c e l l o : C o u n c i l o f ~ P l a n n i n g L i b r a r i a n s , 1969. Wheeler, J . 0., and s t u t z , F. P. " S p a t i a l Dimensions of Urban S o c i a l T r a v e l " , Annals of Assn. Of American Geographers. V o l . 61 (1971) , 371-385. Young, M.|And w i l l m o t t , P., i I § j i l 2 S S i K i n s h i p i n B._. London. London: Routledge and Kegan P a u l , 1957. STATISTICAL APPENDIX 132 TABLE A Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l Status f o r Co-workers d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths Occupation N Mean Mean Sgr Variance Std. dev 1 .Ma j.prop 334 2. 87 8.23 1.03 1. 02 2.Maj.prof 219 2.71 7. 36 .97 .99 3. A drainis. 266 2.84 8.04 .93 . ?6 4.Small bus. 136 2.64 6.90 1. 09 1. 04 5. C l r l / s a l e s 69 2.71 7.38 .79 .89 6. Manual 306 2. 54 6.43 .88 . 94 Grand mean "T7334" "~2772~ 7. 47 .99 .99 Eta s g r = .0163 F(5,1324) = 4.3831 ( s i g . , L e v e l = .00) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f. = 5, .12152 +7; F - .87305 ( s i g l e v e l = . 50) 133 TABLE B Dependence o f d i s t a n c e on Education f o r Co-sorkers d i s t a n c e i n miles and t e n t h s Education N Mean Mean Sgr Variance std.dev 1.Univ degree 250 2.7.8 7.75 1. 08 1.04 2.Seme univ 189 2.69 7.22 . 86 .92 3.Cmptd hgh sch. 365 2.81 7.90 .89 .94 4.Grde 9-11 383 2.73 7. 45 .98 .99 5,Grde 8 / l e s s 143 2. 49 6.22 1. 08 1.04 ' Grand mean 1,330 2.73 7, 41 . 97 .98 Eta sgr - ,0088 F(4,1325) = 2.9506 ( s i g l e v e l = .01) E g u a l i t y of v a r i a n c e t e s t : d.f =4, .19615+7; F = 1.3488 ( s i g l e v e l = .25) TABLE C Dependence o f D i s t a n c e on Income f o r Co-workers d i s t a n c i n miles and tenths of miles Income N flean Mean Sgr. Variance Std.Dev 1. $18,000+ 242 2.79 7.81 . ?6 .98 2. 14 - $17,999 186 2.81 7.82 1. 08 1.04 3. 10 - $13,999 477 2.67 7.11 • 93 .97 4. 6 - $9,999 355 2.73 7.42 .96 .98 5. 0 - $5,999 50 2.80 7.83 .88 . 94 Grand mean 1,310 2.73 7.43 .97 .98 Eta sgr = .0033 F(4, 1035) = 1.07283 { s i g . L e v e l = .37) E g u a l i t y of vari a n c e t e s t : d .f. - 4, .74205 + 6; F = .44638 ( s i g l e v e l = .78) 135 TABLE D Dependence of Distance on O c c u p a t i o n a l S t a t u s not C o n t r o l l i n g f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p Type miles and tenths o f miles Occupation N Mean Mean sgr Variance Std. 1. Ma j . prop 842 2. 37 5.61 1.34 1.16 2.Maj.prof 638 2.29 5.23 1.19 1. 09 3.Adminis 741 2. 40 5.77 1.25 1. 12 4.Small bus 442 2.32 5.39 1.31 1. 14 5 . C l r l / s a l e s 232 2. 41 5.80 1.06 1.03 6.Manual 978 2. 33 5.44 1.22 1. 10 Grand 3,873 2. 35 5,52 1.22 T7J6 E g u a l i t y of Eta sgr = .0014 F (5,3867) =1.0493 ( s i g l e v e l -va r i a n c e t e s t : d.f = 5, .11968 «• ( s i g l e v e l =•• .04) .39) 8; F = Dependence of Distance on Education not C o n t r o l l i n g f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and te n t h s — Education N Mean Mean sgr Variance Std. I.Oniv degree 819 2.31 5.34 1.25 1.12 2.Some univ 541 2.34 5.46 1.12 1.06 3.Cmpted Hgh Sch 1052 2. 43 5.91 1.23 1.11 4.Grde 9 - 1 1 1042 2.34 5.46 1. 24 1.11 5.Grde 8 o r l e s s 46 6 2.26 5.11 1. 25 1. 12 Grand mean 17920" "2735"" "~s75i""~" "T722 "~T7To Eta s g r = .0025 F (4,3915) = 2.4737 ( s i g l e v e l = .04) E q u a l i t y of variance : d.f'= 4, .18245 + 8 F = .57020 ( s i g l e v e l = .68) TABLE I Dependence of Distanc e on Income not C o n t r o l l i n g f o r R e l a t i o n s h i p Type d i s t a n c e i n miles and tenths Income K mean Bean sqr Variance Std, Dev 1. $18,000 714 2.25 5.07 1,19 1.09 2.$14 - $17,999 561 2.40 5.77 1. 27 1.13 3.$10 - $13,999 1320 2.34 5.48 1. 22 1.11 4. $6 - $9,999 1060 2.41 5.83 1. 12 1.06 4. 0 - $6,999 50 2.25 5.07 1.19 1.09 Grand mean 3851 2.35 5.52 1.21 1.10 Eta sgr =• . 0031 F(4,3846) = 3.02 ( s i g l e v e l = .01) E g u a l i t y o f v a r i a n c e : d.f = 4, .90722 +7 F = 1.1722 ( s i g l e v e l = .32) 138 TABLE G E f f e c t s of Distance on co n t a c t i n a Week contact/no c o n t a c t Distance no c o n t a c t c o n t a c t 1 .0. 1 - 2m -0.240 0.240 2. 2.1 - 4.9m -0.083 0.083 3. 5.0 - 10 m 0.147 -0.147 4., 10+ 0.175 -0.175 Mean 0.343 -0.34 3 X*(3) = 83.5782 TABLE H E f f e c t s of Distance on Contact i n a Week f o r R e l a t i v e s contact/no contact Distance no c o n t a c t c o n t a c t 1. 0.1 - 2m -0.231 0.231 2. 2.1 - 4.9m -0.068 0.068 3. 5.0 - 1 0 m 0.177 -0.177 4. 10+ 0. 122 -0. 122 Mean -o.005 0.005 X 2 ( 3 ) = 23. 1562 E f f e c t s of Distance on Contact i n a Seek f o r F r i e n d s contact/no c o n t a c t Distance no c o n t a c t contact 1. 0.1 - 2m -0.065 0.065 2. 2.1 - 4.9m -0.052 0.052 3. 5.0 - 10 m 0.002 -0.002 4. 10+ 0.115 -0.115 Mean 0.157 -0.157 X«(3) = 5.0546 140 |AB|j|-J E f f e c t s of Distance on Contact i n a Seek f o r Co-workers contact/no c o n t a c t Distance no c o n t a c t c o n t a c t 1. .0.1 - 2m -0.300 0.300 2. 2.1 - 4.9m 0.012 -0.012 3. 5.0 - 10 m 0.177 -0. 177 4. 10+ 0.112 -0.112 Mean 1.020 -1.020 X*(3) = 11.289 0 »3 9NIS5IW + a •a azz«ac a •a a •a 333*63 x+ 3 3* 333*33 3 •3 233*33 + a •a ' 035*43 a *3 333*43 a ?2 33S*93 XX+ 7 E* 333*93 x+ t I • 03S*S3 •t- a •a 333*53 + a •3 005*73 x+ 3 3* . 333*73 x+ I I • 33S*E3 + a •3 3aa*E3 XX+ 7 C* 335*33 • + a •3 233*33 x+ .t I • 33SM3 • + a •3 323*13 ' '+ a •a 235*33 x+ 3 3* "323*33 x+ 3 3* 335*6 I XX+ 7 E * 222*6 I XXX+ A 5* 335*91 XX+ s 7* . 333*9 I • XXXX+ ai 9* 22S*£I XX+ 9 s* • 233*4I XXX+ 9 9* 335*9 I XXX+ 9 . 9 • 233*91 x+ c 3* 335*51 x+ E 3* 323*51 AAA + 5 t • 325*71 XXXXXX+ L\ E* I 223*71 x+ 3 3* . 32S-EI XXXXX+ SI I • t 233*CT . XXXXX+ CI a* i 325*31 XX+ s 323*31 XXXXXX+ 91 7* 1 225 * I I XXXXXXXX+ C3 9* t 323*11 XXXXXXXXX+- 93 3*3 235*3 I X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X + E9 9*7 223*21 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ 37 a«E 333S*6 XXXXXXXXXXX+ IE 7*3 • 3333 *6 XXXXXXXXXXX+ IC 7"3 333S*9 XXXXXXXXXXX+ 3C 7*3 3333*9 XXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ 17 I * E 332S *A xxxxxxxxxx* ac E*3 3333 *'A xxxxxxxxxxx+ EC 5*3 3335*9 xxxxxxxxxxxxxx* 17 I • E 3323 *9 XXXXXXXXXX+ 93 t '3 333S*S X X X X X X X X X X X * EE S*3 3333*S xxxxxxxxxxxx* 9E L'Z .. 333SV7 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ 9S E*7 3323 * 7 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ S9 a*s 333S*C xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx* 99 '3*5 3333*E* xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx* 15 5*9 3335*2 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ 6i~ 0*9 3322"E xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx* 69 3.9 0325 * r. •XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ zs— 3*4 .-3323* t XXXXXXXiCXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX+ aat 9*4 -20335*. X X X X X X X X X X X X * SE L'Z •3 iZ =X VI331atfO*99 aOJ 1N.103 LM OdQIW T A B L E O F O R D I N A T E S O F T H E N O R M A L C U R V E ~~ K V .00 0.0 1.00000 0.1 .99501 0.2 .98020 0.3 .95600 0.4 .92312 0.5 .88250 0.6 .83527 0.7 .78270 0.8 .72615 0.9 .66689 1.0 .60653 1.1 .S4607 1.2 .48675 1.3 .42956 1.4 .37531 1.5 .32465 1.6 .27804 1.7 .23575 1.8 .19790 1.9 .16448 2.0 .13534 2.1 .11025 2.2 .08892 2.3 .07100 2.4 .05614 2.5 .04394 2.6 .03405 2.7 .02612 2.8 .01984 2.9 .01492 3.0 .01111 4.0 .00034 .01 99995 99396 97819 95309 91939 87805 83023 77721 ,72033 66097 .60047 . S4007 .48092 .42399 .37007 .31980 .27361 .23176 . 19436 . 16137 .13265 .10795 .0869R . 06939 .05481 .02 99980 99283 97609 95010 915SR 87353 83514 77167 71448 65494 .59440 .53409 .47511 .41845 .36487 .31500 .26923 .22782 . 19086 .15831 . 13000 .10570 .08507 .06780 .05350 .03 04285 .04179 .03317 .02542 .01929 .01449 .03232 .02474 .01876 .01408 99955 99158 97390 94702 91169 .86896 .82010 ,76610 .70861 .64891 .58834 .52812 .46933 .41294 .35971 .31023 .26489 .22392 .18741 .15530 .12740 .10347 .08320 .06624 .05222 .04074 .03148 .02408 .01823 .01367 .04 99920 99025 97161 94387 ,90774 .86432 .81481 ,76048 .70272 .«42R7 .58228 . 52214 .46357 .40747 .35459 .30550 .26059 .22008 . 18400 .15232 .12483 .10129 .08136 .06471 .05096 .03972 .03066 .02343 .01772 .01328 .05 .99875 .98881 .96923 .94055 .90371 85962 80957 75484 69681 63683 57623 .51620 .45793 ,40202 .34950 .30082 .25634 .21627 .18064 .14939 .12230 .09914 .07956 .06321 .04973 .03873 .02986 .02280 .01723 .01288 .06 99820 98728 96676 93723 89961 85488 .80429 .74916 .69087 .63077 .57017 .51027 .45212 .39661 .34445 .29618 .25213 .21251 .17732 .14650 .11981 .09702 .07778 .06174 .04852 .03775 .02908 .02218 .01674 .01252 .07 .08 99755 98565 96420 93382 89543 85006 79896 74342 68493 62472 .56414 50437 .44644 .39123 .33944 .29158 .24797 .20879 . 1T904 . 14364 .11737 .09495 .07604 .06029 .04737 .03680 .02831 .02157 .01627 .01215 .09 99685 98393 96156 93024 89119 84519 79459 73769 ,67896 61865 .55810 .49848 .44078 .38569 .33447 .28702 .24385 .20511 .17081 . 14083 .11496 .09290 .07433 .05888 .04618 .03586 .02757 .02098 .01581 .01179 99596 98211 95882 92677 88688 84060 78817 73193 67298 61259 .55209 .49260 .43516 .38058 .32954 .28251 .23978 .20148 .16762 .13806 .11259 .09090 .07265 .05750 .04505. .03494 .02684 .02040 .01536 .01145 Source: Herbert Arkin and Raymond R. Colton. An Outline tf Statistical VctKoAt (4th ed.: New York: Barnes & Noble. 1939). 142 APPENDIX A 143 Nov we come to a section where ve would like to talk about 6erne of the people you know 'through your work, your neighbors, relatives and some of your beet friends. We'll often ask about the characteristics of these people, because on the face of i t It seems that people tend to do thinjts with other people very touch like then-selves , and we're interested in seeing the degree to which this Is true. <tf respondent does not work, %c to Q81) COULD WE START WITH THE PEOPLE WITH VKOK YO'J WORK? . Q80 CAN YOU NAME THE PEOPLE THAT YOU HAVE TO TALK. TO M3RE THAN ONCE A DAY AS PART OF TOUR WORK? Q80a HOW IS THEIR JOB RELATED TO YOURS? (soecify type of job or occupation) " Q80b DO YOU EVER TALK TO THEM ABOUT NON-WORK THINGS WHILE AT WORK? Q80c BO YOU EVER SEE THEK AWAY FRO* WORK? Q80d ARE THEY IN ANY OF THE SAKE GROUPS OR CLUBS AS YOU? WHICH ONES? Q80e WHAT EDUCATION HAVE THEY HAD? Pers No. Name (First and i n i t i a l ) Type of Job Talk About Non-Work Things See Them Away From Work? In the Same Clubs, Etc.? (Specify) Highest Education Yes - I No Yes No 1 2 3 A 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13. 14 15 1 (Work associates continued) Q80f DO THEY WORK THE SAME HOURS AS TOD? ( i f not) WHAT ABE THEY? Q80g WHAT ARE THi AGES OF THEIR CHILDREN.' Q80h WHERE ARE THET FROH? ,. Q80i HOW OLD ARE THEY? Q80j WHERE DO THEY LIVE? (I.e., specific address, street & hundred bik, or nearest intersection) Q 80k HAVE YOU VISITED OR TALKED TO THESE PEOPLE AWAY FROM WORK IN THE LAST 1 ... DAYS? ( i f necessary specify: "TEAT IS, SINCE A 'IEEK. AGO TODAY) Pers No. Work Hours Ages of Children At Bane Where Are They Fro in Age Residence Contact In 7 days tes Ho 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 • 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 145 NEXT WE HAVE RELATIVES Q83 CAN YOU GIVE ME THE BAKES OF YOUR RELATIVES THAT LIVE IK THE METROPOLITAN AREA AND WHOM YOU'VE VISITED OR TALKED TO SIHCE THE END OF JANUARY? Q83a WHAT RELATION ARE THEY TO YOU? 083b HOW OLD ARE THEY? 083c WHAT ARE THE AGES OF THE IE CHILD REE LIVING AT HOME? Q83d WHERE ARE THEY FROM? Q83e WHAT EDUCATION HAVE THEY HAD? | Fers I No - Name ( f i r s t and i n i t i a l ) delation Age Ages of Children Vbere are they -. from < highest / level jducation i 1- 1 2 •'• t » ! •1 4 . - • 5 j 1 6 — — • 1 4 ; '1 7 I -i 8" 9 ! i i "> I •i • •• 13 | 14 15 16 * <&elatlves Cent.)' Q83f WHAT I S THEIK J O B ? (be specific) Q£3g WHAT HOURS BO T H E Y WORK? 083h DO T H E Y B E L O N G T O AMY OF T H E SAiiE GROUPS OR C L U L S AS YOU DO? 0831 W H E U E DO T H E Y X I V E ? Q83J H A V E Y O U V I S I T E D OR T A L K E D W I T H T R E K I H T H E L A S T 7 D A Y S ? (If necessary / specify, that Is, since a week ago today) Pers. Ko. Occupation war.k: b0UT6 Belong to same organizations (specify) Location of C residence 1 on tact In 7 days: es No .1 • 2 3 > .4 .. 5 6 .7 . -8 -9 .. . AO.. 11 _ 12 -U. .14 . -15-16 ( i f parents are s t i l l living) T E S BO G A V E Y O U V I S I T E D OR T A L K E D W I T H Y O U R P A R E N T S I H T H E L A S T 7 D A Y S ? HotherJ I Father]  AND FINALLY WE COME TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT YOU CONSIDER TO BE YOUR CLOSE PERSONAL FRIENDS LIVING IN THE METROPOLITAN AREA, AND WHOM YOU HAVE SEEN OR.VISITED, WITH SINCE THE END OF JANUARY. Q84 WHAT ARE THEIR NAMES? " : !' Q84a WHERE DO THEY LIVE? (Specify street and blocV or nearest intersection) Q84b HOW OLD ARE THEY? Q84c WHAT ARE THE AGES OF THEIR CHILDREN LIVIWG AT BOHE? 084d WHERE ARE THEY FROM? Per No. Name (First and Initial) Residence j Age Ages of Children At Home Where Arc They From I :." 2 :. 3 - • 4 5 -6 7 • • 8 9 10 • 11 12 13 14 15 16 (friends continued) Q84e WHAT EDUCATION HAVE THEY BAD? Q84f WHAT IS THEIR JOE? Q84g WHAT ARE THEIR WORK HOURS? Q84h DO THEY BELONG TO ANY OF THE SAME CROUPS OR CLUBS AS TOU DO? WHICH ONES? Q84i HAVE TOU VISITED OR TALKED WITH THEM IN TEE LAST SEVEN DATS? (If necessary, specify: That i s , since a week ago today) Per Ko. highest Level Educ. Occupation Work Hours Belong to Same Organizations? (Specify) Contac 7 Da Yes t In 7s. No 1 2 3 4 5 -6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 V.OV THE:: WE WOULD LIKE TO GO SACK TO THE PEOPLE TOD HAVE TALKED WITH IN THE FAST WEEK AND ASK ABOUT THOSE VISITS INFORMAL SOCIAL PARTICIPATION NAME (check one) Neighbor PERSON NUMBER WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME YOU TALKED WITH HIM/HER? (Repeat question to cover tha last seven days) Friend | [ Relative | j , Work Associate | | u i i n c v OF WEEK WHAT DID YOU DO? (des .rlbe) TI FROM ME TO WHERE WHO ELSE WAS INVOLVED? WAS VIM YES X I TNED1 NO IDEA? t HOW DID YOU FIRST MEET HIM/HER? 150 APPENDIX B 151 INDEX OF SOCIAL POSITION (with a supplement from the Oregon Labor Skills Survey) A. B. Hollingshead tale University SOCIO-ECONOMIC SCALE POSITIONS DO Ko Information* -. Higher Executives of Large Concerns. Proprietors, and Major Professionals. 01 * 'Higher 'Executives; f T n l u n ul M M . u u l I'I'III IHH .nnO m i l ul m i m i i n 11»* by Trum and. Bradg^reegry* "Bank "Presidents: Vice-Presidents: and Assistant Vice-Presidents. Businesses - Directors, Presidents, Vice-Presidents, Assistant Vice-Presidents, Executive Secretaries, Research Directors, Treasurers, Regional or Division Managers of large cor-| po rat lone. ^ 02 J Proprietors: (VaU M U 91*5,OPS *Li>' •Omni uml DuOuUHTfL.) Broker: Dairy Owners Lumber Dealers' | Contractors . Farmers 03 j Major Professionals: Accountants (O.P.A.) Actuaries Agronomists Architects Artists, Portrait Astronomers Auditors Bacteriologists Chemical Engineers Chemists > Clergymen {Pr-fr-firM nmny Trained) Dentists Economists Engineers (College Grad.) Tores ters ; Geologists' High School Principals ; Judges (Superior Courts) Lawyers •••••••' Metallurgists ' '• Military, Comm. Officers, Major and above, Officials of the Executive Branch of Government,'Federal, State, Local, e.g.; Mayor, City Manager, City Plan Director, Internal Revenue Directors Physicians Physicists, Research Psychologists, Practicing School Superintendents Symphony Conductor Teachers, University, College Veterinarians (Veterinary Surgeons) - Business Managers, Proprietors of Medium Sired Businesses, and Lesser  Professionals. •04 ! Business Managers in Large Concerns (Valmi QSOfltOOQ (ilwiQ Advertising Directors farm Managers Branch Managers Manufacturer's Representatives * Not included In Index of Social Position by A. B. Hollingshead 152 04 05 (Cant.) Brokerage Salesmen Directors of Purchasing Di s t r i c t Managers Executive Assistants Expert Managers, Int. Concern Government Officials, minor, eg: Inter-nal Revenue Agents Crade School Principals Office Managers Persomel Managers Police Chief; Sheriff Postmaster Production lanagers Sales Engineers Sales Managers, National Concerns Store Managers Proprietors of Mediuc Sized Businesses ("r i lur tin.mW m j l l J . O O O ) Advertising Clothing Store Contractors Express Company Farm Owners Fruits, Wholesale FUXJ iture Business Jewellers Poultry Business Real Estate Brokers Rug Business Store Theatre 06 Lesser Professionals Accountants Airline Pilots - Major Airlines Chiropodists Correction Officers Director of Community Bouse .Engineers (Not College Crad.) Finance Writers. H Health Educators .Labor Relations Consultants Librarians Administrative Personnel. Owners Professionsals. Military, Comm. Officers, Lte., Captains Musicians (Symphony Orchestra) Nurses Opticians Peace Corps* Pharmacists Public Health Officers (M.PtH.) Research Assistants, Dniv. (Pull time) Social Workers Teachers, Elementary and High School of Small Businesses, and Minor 07 Administrative Persvnnel Advertising Agents Ai r l i n e Hostess* Chief Clerks Credit Managers Insurance Agents Managers, Departments Private Secretaries (inc l . a l l secretaries*) Purchasing Agents Passenger Agents — R.R. Sales Representatives (e.g.,.Car Salesmen) Section Heads, Federal, State, and Local Governmental Officers Section Heads, Large Businesses end Industries Service Managers Shop Managers Store Managers (Chain) Traffic Managers •Not included i n Index of Social Position bv A. B. BoUingshead 08 Snail Business Owners f^?P ,Pfin fn, 'jlOrfffifty Art Gallery Auto Accessories Awnings Bakery Beauty Shop Boatyard Brokerage, Insurance Car Sealers Cigarette Machines Cleaning Shops Clothing Coal Bujinesses Contracting Businesses Convalescent Hones Decorating Dog Supplies Dry Goods Engraving Business Food Finance Co..Local Fire Extinguishers Five and Ten-Cent Stores F l o r i s t Food Equipment Food Products Foundry Funeral Directors Furniture 09 Semi-Prof essiosals Actors and Showmen Army M/Sgt.; Kavy, C.F.O. Artl6ts, Commercial Appraisers (Estimators) Clergymen (Not Professionally Trained) Concern Managers Deputy Sheriffs Dispatchers, R.R. Interior Decorators Interpreters, Court Laboratory Assistants Landscape Planners Morticians - Oral Rygienists Carage Cas Station Glassware Grocery - General Hotel Proprietors Jewellery Machinery Brokers Manufacturing Monuments Music Package Store (Liquor) Paint Contraction Plumbing Poultry Real Estate Records and Radios Restaurant Roofing Contractor . Shoe Signs Tavern Taxi Company Tire Shop Trucking Trucks and Tractors Upholstery Wholesale Outlets Window shades Photographers Physio-therapists Piano Teachers Publicity and Public Relations Radio, T.V. Announcers Reporters, Court Reporters, Newspapers Surveyors T i t l e Searchers Tool Designers Travel Agents Yard Masters, R.R. 10 Farmers (3 16 Farm Owners .<C20tQ00 te f a . |Q88). 154 Clerical and Sales Workers, Technicians and Owners ef L i t t l e Businesses. (Value Unan $l€,qOO) ' 11 Clerical and Sales Workers Apartment Managers * B i l l Collectors Bookkeepers Business Machine Operators, Offices ^ Claims Examiners Clerical or Stenographic Condi- ;tors, R.R. Employment Interviewers Factory Storekeepers Factory Supervisors Post Office Clerks Route Managers Sales Clerks Sergeants and Petty Officers, Military Services Shipping Clerks Supervisors, U t i l i t i e s , Factories Toll Station Supervisors Warehouse Clerks Bank Clerks t Tellers 12 Technicians Dental Technicians Draf tsmen Driving Teachers Expcnitor, Factory Experimental Tester Instructors, Telephone Co., Factory Inspectors, Weights, Sanitary Inspectors, R.R.., Factory Investigators Laboratory Technicians Locomotive Engineers Operators, F.B.X. Proofreaders Safety Supervisors Supervisors of Maintenance Technical Assistants • Telephone Co. Supervisors Timekeepers Tower Operators, R.R. Truck Dispatchers Window Trimmers (Store) 13 Owners of L i t t l e Businesses ($5,000 to $10,000) 14 Flower Shop Grocery Farmers 6 Owners (;i0|O0Cl rn ^ ?n,0QB) Kewrstand Tailor Shop 15 Skilled Manual Employees K ? 1 Auto Body Repairers Automobile Mechanics Bakers Barbers Blacksmiths Bookbinders Boilermakers Brakemen, R.R. Brewers Bulldozer Operators * (5-81.01) Butchers Cabinet Makers Cable Splicers Carpenters Casters (Founders) Cement Finishers Cheese Makers Chefs Compositors Cranemen, Shovel Operators, Donkey Punchers* (5-73) * Hot Included i n Index of Social Position by A. B. fioLlingshead Skilled Manual Enployees - (Cent.) DieoakerG Diesel Shovel Operators Electricians Eng revere Exterminators Fitters, Gas, Steam .. " Firemen, City Firemen, R.R. Foremen, Construction, Dairy Gardeners,Landscape (trained) Glass Blower6 Glaziers Gunsmiths Gauge Makers Eair Stylists Beat Treaters Bor11culturis ts Household Appliance Servicemen* . (5-83.0) . . -Linemen, U t i l i t y Linotype Operators Lithographers Locksmiths Loom Fixers Lumber Graders* (4-29.51) Machinists (trained) Maintenance Foremen Masons Masseurs Manufacturing Foremen* (5-91-5-92) Mechanics (trained) Millwrights Moulders (trained) Yard Supervisors, R.R. Painters Faperhangers Patrolmen, R.R. Pattern and Model Makers Photograph Develoers and Finishers* (5.86.5) Piano Builders Plate Tuners -Plasterers* (5-29) Plumbers Policemen, City Postmen Pressmen and Plate Printers* (4-48) Printers Badlo, T.V. Maintenance Repair and Maintenance of Diesel Engine (trained) Repairmen, Home Appliances Rope Splicers Sawmill Head Saw Operators* (4-31.11 - 4-31.12) Sheetmetal Workers (trained) Shipsjiiths Show Repairmen (trained) Stationary Engineers (Licensed) Stewards, Club and Train Steward* Switchmen, R.R. Tractor-Trailer Trans. Truck, Bus, and Tractor Mechanics* (5-81.03 - 5081.04) Typographers Type Setters* Upholsterers (traine.-*.) Watchmakers Weavers Welders Tailors (trained) Teletype Operators Tool Makers Truck Supervisors, R.R. Small Farmers Owners (Kudu1 -WOvOOOy" Tenants who own farm equipment * • Machine Operators and Semi-Skllled Employees Aides, Hospital Pondmen* (6-30.37) Apprentices, Electricians, Printers Practical Nurses Steam Fitters, Toolaakers Pressers, Clothing Assembly Line Workers Puxtp Operators * Hot included In Index of Social Position by A. B. Hollingshead Machine Operators and Seal-Skilled Employees (Cont.) Barker and Chipper Operators* (6-39.502 - 6-39.504) Bartenders Bingo Tenders Boiler'Tenders* (7-70) Bridge Tenders Building Superintendents (Oust.) Bus Drivers Carpet and Llnoleuc Layers* (7-59.2 - 7-59.3) Checkers Coin Machine F i l l e r s Cooks, Short Order Crusher Operators * (7-22.34) Delivery Men Dressmakers, Machine Elevator Operators Enlisted Men, military Services Fallers and Buckers* (6-30.03 - 6-30.14) ' • Fi l e r s , Benders, Buffers Foundry Workers Garage and Gas Station Assistants Garment Finishers* (7-57.5) Greenhouse'Workers Greencheinmen and Sorters* (6-31.840 - 6.31.860) Guards, Doorkeepers, Watchmen Hairdressers Housekeepers L i f t Truck Operators* (7-88.4) Log Scalers* (6-29.01) Log Sawyers* (6-31.C - 6-31.3) Lumber and Veneer Graders* "(6-29.5) Meat Cutters and Packers Meter Readers Miners* Operators, Factory Machines Oilers, R.R. Patching Machine Operators* (6-39.505) Plywood Patchers* (6-39.487) Plywood and Veneer Press Operators* (6-39.480 - 6-39.481) Receivers and Checkers Resawyers and Trimmermen* (6-31.4) Roofers Routemen* (7-35) Sanders* (6-33.1; Saw Filers* (7-84.2) Service Station Attendants* (7-60.500) Set-up-men, Factories Sewing Machine Operators * (6-27.46 -6-27.529) Shapers' Signalmen, R.R. Solderers, Factory Sprayers, Paint Steelworkers (Not skilled) Stranders, Wire Machines Strippers, Rubber Factory Taxi Drivers Testers Timers^ Tire Moulders Tractor Operators* (7-36.510) Trainmen, R.R. Truck Drivers, General Veneer Driers* (6-39.473) Waiters - Waitresses ("Better Places") Weighers Welders, Spot Winders, Machine Wiredrawers, Machine Wine Bottlers Woodworking Sawyers* (6-33.2) Wood Workers, Machine Wrappers, Stores and Factories Veneer Clippers* (6.39.472) Farmers: Smaller Tenents who own l i t t l e eouioraent * Dot included.in Index of Social Position by A.B. Hollingshead. 157 17 Unskilled Employees Amusement Park Workers (Bowling Alleys, Pool Booms) Ash Removers Attendants, Parking Lots -Cafeteria Workers Car Cleaners, &.R. Carriers, Coal Construction Laborers* (9-32.01) Countermen Dairy Workers Deck Hands Domestics Farm Helpers Fishermen (Clam Diggers) Food Products Laborers* (6-04.10) Freight Handlers Garbage Collectors Gardeners and Groundskeepers* (3-Grave Diggers Hod Carriers Bog K i l l e r s Hospital Workers, Unspecified Hostlers, R.R. Irrigators* (3-32.21) Janitor6 (Sweepers) Relief, Public, Private Laborers, Construction laborers, Unspecified Laundry Workers Logging Laborers* (8-30.10) Machine Shop Laborers* (6-78.10) Messengers Municipal Services Laborers* (9-61.21) Packers and Wrappers* (9-68.30) Peddlers Planer M i l l Laborers* (6-33.11 - . B-34) Platfora Men, &.R. Porters Printing and Publishing Laborers* (8-49.01) Pulp and Paper Laborers* (8-41.01) Retail Trade Laborers* (9-59.01) Roofer's Helpers Sawmill Laborers* (8-31.01) Sawmill and Planer M i l l Off-bearers* (8-33.05) Shirt Folders Shoe Shiners Sorters, Rag and Salvage Stage Hands 40) Stevedores Stock Handlers Street Cleaners Trucks en, R.R. Onskilled Factory Workers Veneer Laborers* (8-39.47) Waitresses - "Bash Houses" Warehousing Laborers* (9-88) Washers, Cars Waterworks Laborers* (9-54.60) Window Cleaners Woodchoppers 16 J.9 20 21 98 *9 Farmers: Share Croppers Housewife* Retired* Student*  TIES unemployed*  Does not Apply* Don't Know* HZ . 2.1 Sect- c*vi r/* s/*t * *us//tfsr p< sraWy*?**"/ * Mot included i n Index of Social Position by A. I. Hollingshead 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0094341/manifest

Comment

Related Items