Families and Personal Networks An International Comparative Perspective

181

effect on social capital. The significant effects of cohorts on network com-
position revealed in Chap. 5 do not translate into distinct types or
quantity of social capital. The effect of the composition of configurations
remains highly significant when statistically controlling for such factors.
Friendship, Wo rk, and Mixed, but also Extended-conjugal and Siblings per-
sonal configurations are highly centralised, with a bridging type of social
capital being prevalent. Beanpole, Nuclear-narrow, Nuclear-standard, and,
to some extent, Parental personal configurations, on the other hand, have
higher density and lower centrality.

Table 6.4 Influence of shaping factors on social capital: density and centralisation
of interaction and emotional support. Linear regressions, unstandardized beta
coefficients

Predictors

Interaction Emotional support

Density Centralisation Density Centralisation

Constant 0.688 −0.060 ** 0.729 *** −0.037 **

Country (ref: Portugal)

Switzerland 0.134 *** 0.194 *** −0.098 *** 0.223 ***

Lithuania 0.209 *** 0.198 *** −0.099 *** 0.173 ***

Personal configuration (ref: Beanpole)

Extended

conjugal

−0.037 0.047 * −0.028 0.060 *

Friendship −0.104 *** 0.127 *** −0.028 0.124 ***

Mixed −0.116 *** 0.039 −0.122 *** 0.040

Nuclear –

standard

0.002 0.002 0.112 *** 0.004

Nuclear –

narrow

0.035 −0.022 0.150 *** −0.014

Parental −0.039 0.016 0.022 0.065
Siblings −0.067 0.044 0.042 0.065
Work −0.196 ** 0.231 −0.160 0.111
Empty −0.822 −0.133 −0.617 −0.167
Birth cohort (ref: 1950–1955)
1970–1975 −0.012 0.004 0.003 −0.007
Gender (ref: men)
Women −0.011 0.021 −0.023 0.026
Education level (ref: medium)
Low 0.001 0.015 −0.018 0.003
High −0.015 −0.005 −0.030 * 0.034 *
R^2 0.340 0.190 0.218 0.180
Notes: p < 0.05; p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; by Ref., we mean the baseline
category against which all other categories are compared

Understanding Personal Networks as Social Capital