Page 42 - Social networks of people with mild intellectual disabilities: characteristics and interventions

Chapter 2
Initiation of contact
As can be seen from Table 3, the initiation of contact was considered reciprocal in almost 50% of the relationships for all of the subgroups we identified with the exceptions of brothers and sisters, other family members and other acquaintances. The category of inactive initiation (neither the participant nor the network member explicitly takes the initiative of contact) was relatively high for the other family members, other acquaintances, neighbours and colleagues (range of 17.28–37.88%). In such cases, the individuals see each other along with the others in a group, at a club, on the street or at work.
The results in Table 3 show those participants who judged the initiation of contact within their social network to be neither reciprocal nor inactive to perceive themselves as the main initiator of contact more often than the other members of their social networks. This difference was significant for both the family members within the social network, t(31) = 3.499, p = .001, and the acquaintances, t(28) = 2.504, p = .018. Comparison of the initiation of contact across the three groups (i.e. family, acquaintances and professionals) revealed no significant differences.
Table 3 Initiation of contact (mean %)* Family 38.21
Partner/children 50.00 Parents 48.15 Brothers/Sisters 32.67 Other Family 29.96
Acquaintances 49.44 Friends 48.01 Colleagues 48.48 Neighbours 50.00 Other acquaintances 37.51
Professionals 46.72
36.85 10.12 26.47 5.88 38.89 9.26 40.00 13.33 37.87 8.71
24.88 6.71 26.94 7.87 9.09 4.55 14.29 0.00 18.86 2.20
25.81 16.08
9.48 5.88
0.00
4.00 17.28
14.33 11.98
37.88 28.57 26.74
6.99
Reciprocal
Participant
Network member
Inactive
* Category (row) totals which differ from 100% reflect missing data (i.e. the participant could not indicate a main initiator of contact).
2.3.2 Functional characteristics of the social networks
With respect to the functional characteristics of the social networks of the participants in our study, Table 4 shows the mean scores along a five-point scale for affection, connection, preference and practical/informational support.
40