Daw Jonathan, Verdery Ashton M
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, USA.
Socius. 2023 Jan-Dec;9. doi: 10.1177/23780231231171097. Epub 2023 Jun 18.
Two largely separate schools of sociological theory seek to explain to whom we turn in times of need. The first argues that we turn to network members who occupy socially important roles, highlighting how support behaviors cluster in certain social roles (i.e., role effects). The second argues that we turn to network members possessing relevant resources and with whom we have strong ties. The authors unite these perspectives, examining how role effects on living kidney donation behavior are explained by role groups' endowments of situationally relevant resources and tie strength. The authors analyze two original data sets: a sample of kidney transplantation patients reporting on their social networks = 70 patients and 1,421 ties) and a separate sample surveying kidney disease patients' family members ( = 1,560). The authors find that role effects on living kidney donation behavior are largely explained by the conjunction of relevant resources and tie strength, which offers several key lessons for medical support-seeking research.
有两大相对独立的社会学理论流派试图解释在需要的时候我们会向谁求助。第一种观点认为,我们会求助于那些占据社会重要角色的网络成员,强调支持行为如何在某些社会角色中聚集(即角色效应)。第二种观点认为,我们会求助于拥有相关资源且与我们有紧密联系的网络成员。作者将这些观点结合起来,研究角色群体在情境相关资源和关系强度方面的禀赋如何解释对活体肾捐赠行为的角色效应。作者分析了两个原始数据集:一个是肾移植患者报告其社交网络的样本(70名患者和1421条关系),另一个是对肾病患者家属进行单独抽样调查的样本(1560人)。作者发现,对活体肾捐赠行为的角色效应在很大程度上是由相关资源和关系强度共同作用来解释的,这为寻求医疗支持的研究提供了几个关键经验教训。