ASA Journals Home | American Sociological Association
Click on The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact?
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears (2006, 2008b) reported that Americans’ social
networks shrank precipitously from 1985 to 2004. When asked to list the people with
whom they discussed “important matters,” respondents to the 2004 General Social
Survey (GSS) provided about one-third fewer names than did respondents in the 1985
survey. Critically, the percentage of respondents who provided no names at all increased
from about 10 percent in 1985 to about 25 percent in 2004. The 2004 results contradict
other relevant data, however, and they contain serious anomalies; this suggests that the
apparently dramatic increase in social isolation is an artifact. One possible source of the
artifact is the section of the 2004 interview preceding the network question; it may have
been unusually taxing. Another possible source is a random technical error. With as yet
no clear account for these inconsistencies and anomalies, scholars should be cautious in
using the 2004 network data. Scholars and general readers alike should draw no
inference from the 2004 GSS as to whether Americans’ social networks changed
substantially between 1985 and 2004; they probably did not.
Click on The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact?
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Brashears (2006, 2008b) reported that Americans’ social
networks shrank precipitously from 1985 to 2004. When asked to list the people with
whom they discussed “important matters,” respondents to the 2004 General Social
Survey (GSS) provided about one-third fewer names than did respondents in the 1985
survey. Critically, the percentage of respondents who provided no names at all increased
from about 10 percent in 1985 to about 25 percent in 2004. The 2004 results contradict
other relevant data, however, and they contain serious anomalies; this suggests that the
apparently dramatic increase in social isolation is an artifact. One possible source of the
artifact is the section of the 2004 interview preceding the network question; it may have
been unusually taxing. Another possible source is a random technical error. With as yet
no clear account for these inconsistencies and anomalies, scholars should be cautious in
using the 2004 network data. Scholars and general readers alike should draw no
inference from the 2004 GSS as to whether Americans’ social networks changed
substantially between 1985 and 2004; they probably did not.
