Skip to main content
PMC home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2014 Jul 30.
Published in final edited form as: Fam Relat. 2013 Oct 1;62(4):609–624. doi: 10.1111/fare.12030

Racial and Ethnic Differences in Extended Family, Friendship, Fictive Kin and Congregational Informal Support Networks

Robert Joseph Taylor 1, Linda M Chatters 2, Amanda Toler Woodward 3, Edna Brown 4
PMCID: PMC4116141  NIHMSID: NIHMS591372  PMID: 25089067

Involvement with kin and non kin is an essential component of daily life for the vast majority of Americans. Family and friendship support networks are important for coping with the ongoing stresses of daily life (e.g. Benin & Keith, 1995), providing a place to live when confronting homelessness (Taylor, Chatters & Celious 2003), and in coping with physical and mental health problems (Cohen, Underwood & Gottlieb, 2000; Lincoln, 2000). This study explores differences between African Americans, non-Hispanic Whites and Caribbean Blacks (Black Caribbeans) on several measures of family, friendship, fictive kin and religious congregation-based informal support networks, using data from the National Survey of American Life. The literature review begins with a discussion of the family solidarity model as the theoretical perspective framing our analysis of kin and non-kin relations and social support. This is followed by a review of research findings on Black-White differences in family and non-kin support networks and a review of available information on informal support networks within the Caribbean Black population in the United States. This section concludes with a description of the focus and goals of the present investigation.

Theoretical Perspective on Family and Non-Kin Relations: Family Solidarity Model

The conceptual framework guiding our study is the family solidarity model (McChesney & Bengtson, 1988). As the name suggests, the family solidarity model views the connections and bonds between members as an important and fundamental organizing feature of the family. The family solidarity model further states that understanding family functioning in a particular domain (such as support provision) requires an appreciation for other factors that characterize family members’ attitudes, behaviors and the qualitative aspects of family relationships (e.g., expressed closeness, interactions). The family solidarity model (Bengtson, Giarrusso, Mabry & Silverstein, 2002; Nye & Rushing, 1969) identifies a set of dimensions that characterize family relations that focus on family interactions, affect (e.g., feelings of closeness to family), and behaviors (receiving and giving support). The family solidarity model moves beyond an exclusive focus on enacted support exchanges (e.g., receiving and giving support) which are often narrowly defined (i.e., monetary exchanges) and constrained by factors such as poverty and geographic distance. Instead, family dimensions such as interaction and affection are incorporated that are also relevant and important in characterizing family relationships. Further, despite some debate in the literature, the family solidarity paradigm also incorporates assessments of conflict within families (see Bengtson, Giarrusso, Mabry & Silverstein, 2002 and Connidis & McMullin, 2002)

The family solidarity model is also well-suited for examining non-kin networks. For instance, research on congregation support networks among both Blacks and Whites identifies the presence of several dimensions including frequency of interaction with church members, degree of affection for church members, frequency of negative interactions with church members, in addition to frequency of giving and receiving support (Krause, 2002; Taylor et al., 2005). The family solidarity paradigm thus allows for an assessment of social support network structure and function across a diverse set of dimensions, within both kin and non-kin networks. Consequently, the family solidarity model is appropriate for examining race and ethnic differences in various dimensions of family, friendship, fictive kin and congregational support networks.

Family Support Networks

Research on Black-White differences for receipt of support from family members has yielded mixed results that can be characterized by three general collections of findings (Sarkisian & Gertsel, 2004). One set of studies indicates that Blacks are more likely than Whites to give and receive assistance from their support networks (e.g., Benin & Keith, 1995; Gertsel & Gallager, 1994; Johnson & Barer, 1995). This finding was especially evident in research studies conducted in the 1980s through the early 1990s (e.g., Hatch, 1991; Hogan, Hao & Parish, 1990; Mutran, 1985). Another set of studies indicates that Whites are more likely to give and receive support than Blacks (e.g., Hogan, Eggebeen & Clogg, 1993; Jayakody, 1998). Finally, a third set of studies found either no Black-White differences in kin support networks or that depending upon the measure used Blacks or Whites had greater levels of involvement in kin network (Eggebean, 1992; Kim & McKenry, 1998; Peek, Coward & Peek, 2000; Peek & O’Neill, 2001; Sarkisian & Gertsel, 2004; Silverstein & Waite, 1993). A related body of research on caregiving for older adults with dementia indicates that while African American caregivers report more positive appraisals of caregiving than Whites, there are no significant differences in the amount of informal support received (Dilworth-Anderson, Willliams & Gibson, 2002).

Discrepant findings for Black-White differences in support networks are attributable to several factors (Sarkisian & Gertsel, 2004), including differences in: 1) the age of the populations studied (e.g., young mothers, adults, elderly adults), 2) the life circumstances of study populations (e.g., poverty, single mothers), 3) whether support was examined in relation to crisis versus commonplace situations (e.g., emergencies, serious health problems, caregiving), 4) the types of support examined (e.g., instrumental, emotional), and 5) the specific kin groups examined (e.g., parents, adult children, grandparent, siblings, other relatives). Finally, a variety of methodological issues in this literature include differences in the conceptualization and measurement of social support (see Cohen et al., 2000). The goal of our study is to provide insight into Black-White differences in family support by examining several aspects of these support networks, in addition to receiving and providing assistance (enacted support). Further, our analysis also focuses on black-white differences in non-kinship support networks.

Friendship, Fictive Kin and Congregation Support Networks

Friendship Networks

Surprisingly little research focuses on racial differences in friendship networks, or exclusively on African American friendships. Available findings on racial differences are mixed, but the preponderance of evidence indicates that Whites are more involved in friendship networks than are African Americans. This includes findings from a study involving midlife women (Waite & Harrison, 1992) and a non-probability sample of women residing in Boston (Griffin, Amodeo, Clay, Fassler & Ellis, 2006). Further, research on support network composition indicates that in comparison to Whites, African Americans have more kin than friends in their networks (Ajrouch, Antonucci & Janevic, 2001; Pugliesi & Shook 1998; Keith, Kim & Schafer, 2000) and rely more on kin-centered networks (Peek et al., 2000; Perry & Johnson, 1994).

Fictive Kin Networks

Ethnographic research documents that fictive kin are important members of the informal networks of African American families (see review by Chatters et al., 1994). Fictive kin are defined as individuals who are unrelated by either blood or marriage, but regard one another in kinship terms (Sussman, 1976). Fictive kin are accorded many of the same rights and statuses as family members and are expected to participate in the duties of the extended family (Chatters et al., 1994). Ethnographic research identifies different types of fictive kin including peer group members among adolescents, Godparents, and church members (Chatters et al., 1994). For instance, people frequently describe members of church networks using kinship terms in which fellow congregation members are called “Brother” or “Sister” and church members are regarded as one’s “church family” (Lincoln & Mamiya, 1990). Consequently, in some instances, members of fictive kin networks and congregational support networks may overlap.

The majority of fictive kin research is based on small ethnographic studies. Evidence from qualitative studies suggests that non-Hispanic Whites engage in fictive kin relationships. However, because very few studies examine fictive kin networks within this group, this issue has yet to be fully explored (Chatters et al., 1994; also see Mac Rae, 1992). To our knowledge the present study is the first investigation of Black-White differences in fictive kin networks.

Congregation Support Networks

A large body of research documents the prominent role of religion and churches in the lives of African Americans (Taylor et al., 2004). Despite the importance of religion to both African Americans and Whites, only a handful of studies examine the role of congregation members in informal support networks. This work documents that congregation members are an important source of informal assistance and the majority of African Americans indicate that they receive some level of assistance from church members (Taylor et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 2005). For individuals who do not have family or who are estranged from their family, church members are an alternative source of assistance (Chatters, Taylor, Lincoln & Schroepfer, 2002). Congregation members provide similar types of aid that family and friends provide such as financial assistance, advice and companionship, as well as assistance in addressing spiritual and moral issues. Finally, in the only major race comparative study of support from congregation members, Krause (2002) found that among elderly adults, Blacks were more involved in activities with their church networks and significantly more likely than Whites to give and receive assistance from church members.

Caribbean Blacks in the United States

Recent growth in the size of Black immigrant populations from Caribbean countries underscores the significant, but often unrecognized, ethnic group variation in the Black American population. Caribbean Blacks make up fully one-quarter of the Black population in New York, Boston, and Nassau-Suffolk, NY, over 30% of Blacks in Miami and West Palm Beach-Boca Raton, FL and 44% of Blacks in Fort Lauderdale (Logan & Deane, 2003: Table 2) Despite this growth, race and ethnicity are traditionally viewed as interchangeable for Black Americans. As a consequence, ethnic heterogeneity within the Black racial category remains largely unexplored, particularly in relation to Caribbean Blacks. The use of the broad term, “Black American,” conceals this ethnically defined sub-group and differences related to their ethnicity, nationality, and life circumstances (Logan & Deane, 2003).

Table 2.

Race and Ethnic Differences in Involvement in Informal Social Support Networks

African Americans Excluded Category Black Caribbeans Excluded Category
OR (95% CI) B ( SE) OR (95% CI) B (SE) N
Family Network
# of Family Helpers
   Black Caribbeans .93(.76,1.14) −.069(.10) African Americans 1.07(.88,1.31) .069(.10) 5838
   Whites .98(.90,1.07) −.016(.04) Whites 1.05(.85,1.30) .053(.11)
Family support received
   Black Caribbeans .94(.71,1.23) −.064 (.14) African Americans 1.07(.82,1.40) .064(.14) 5638
   Whites 1.05(.86,1.28) .049 (.10) Whites 1.12(.80,1.56) .113(.17)
Family support given
   Black Caribbeans .87(.67,1.13) −.138(.13) African Americans 1.14(.88,1.49) .138(.13) 5827
   Whites .76(.63,.93)** −.270(.10)** Whites .88(.62,1.23) −.132(.17)
Family contact
   Black Caribbeans .69(.51,.91)* −.377(.14)* African Americans 1.45(1.09,1.94)* .377(.14)* 5914
   Whites .86(.71,1.06) −.143(.10) Whites 1.26(.88,1.80) .233(.18)
Family daily contact
   Black Caribbeans .68(.50,95)* −.374(.16)* African Americans 1.45(1.05,2.00)* .374(.16)* 5914
   Whites .76(.60,.96)* −.268(.12)* Whites 1.11(.74,1.67) .107(.20)
Closeness to family
   Black Caribbeans 1.07(.73,1.58) .075(.19) African Americans .93(.63,1.35) −.075(.19) 5910
   Whites .82(.59,1.15) −.196(.17) Whites .76(.45,1.29) −.272(.26)
Family emotional support
   Black Caribbeans NA .025(.05) African Americans NA −.025(.05) 5908
   Whites NA .062(.04) Whites NA .036(.06)
Family negative interaction
   Black Caribbeans NA .042(.07) African Americans NA −.042(.07) 5912
   Whites NA −.053(.03) Whites NA −.095(.07)
Friendship Network
Friendship contact
   Black Caribbeans 1.03 (.78,1.37) .035(.14) African Americans .97(.73,1.28) −.035(.14) 5948
   Whites 1.19(1.06,1.34)** .174(.06)** Whites 1.15(.87,1.52) .140(.14)
Daily Friendship contact
   Black Caribbeans .91 (.67,1.23) −.096(.15) African Americans 1.10(.81,1.49) .096(.15) 5948
   Whites 1.09(.93,1.29) .088(.08) Whites 1.20(.88,1.63) .184(.15)
Friendship support received
   Black Caribbeans 1.11(.91,1.38) .112(.11) African Americans .89(.72,1.10) −.112(.11) 5472
   Whites 1.45(1.25,1.67)*** .369(.07)*** Whites 1.29(1.03,1.61)* .257(.11)*
Friendship support given
   Black Caribbeans 1.12(.89,1.41) .116(.11) African Americans .89(.71,1.13) −.116(.11) 5689
   Whites 1.29(1.14,1.48)*** .262(.07)*** Whites 1.15(.94,1.41) .145(.10)
Closeness to friends
   Black Caribbeans 1.02(.72,1.44) .019(.17) African Americans .98(.69,1.38) −.019(.17) 5806
   Whites 1.01(.88,1.16) .009(.08) Whites .99(.71,1.38) −.010(.17)
Fictive Kin
Has fictive kin
   Black Caribbeans .90(.58,1.39) −.107(.22) African Americans 1.11(.72,1.72) .107(.22) 5806
   Whites .46(.36,.59)*** −.771(.13)*** Whites .51(.32,.83)** −.66.(24)**
Number of fictive kin
   Black Caribbeans 1.12(.78,1.63) .117(.18) African Americans .89(.61,1.29) −.117(.18) 5806
   Whites .67(.60,.75)*** −.400(.05)*** Whites .60(.40,.88)** −.517(.20)**
Fictive kin support received
   Black Caribbeans 1.09(.86,1.40) .090(.12) African Americans .91(.71,1.17) −.090(.12) 4849
   Whites 1.48(1.22,1.77)*** .397(.09)*** Whites 1.36(1.02,1.79)* .304(.14)*
Congregation Networks
Number of congregation helpers
   Black Caribbeans .91(.76,1.10) −.092(.09) African Americans 1.10(.91,1.38) .092(.09) 4493
   Whites 1.12(.98,1.28) .116(.07) Whites 1.23(.95,1.59) .208(.13)
Congregation member contact
   Black Caribbeans .83(.69,1.02) −.176(.10) African Americans 1.19(.69,1.22) .176(.10) 4817
   Whites .71(.52,.97)* −.349(.16)* Whites .84(.59,1.81) −.173(.17)
Congregation member daily contact
   Black Caribbeans .82(.59,1.15) −.195(.17) African Americans 1.21(.87,1.70) .195(.17) 4817
   Whites .85(.59,1.15) −.161(.19) Whites 1.03(.66,1.62) .034(.23)
Congregation support received
   Black Caribbeans .78(.57,1.07) −.248(.16) African Americans 1.28(.93,1.76) .248(.16) 3753
   Whites .92(.72,1.17) −.083(.12) Whites 1.17(.82,1.68) .165(.18)
Congregation support given
   Black Caribbeans .79(.64,.97)* −.228(.10)* African Americans 1.27(1.03,1.56)* .228(.10)* 4518
   Whites .63(.52,.77)*** −.455(.10)*** Whites .80(.63,1.03) −.216(.12)
Closeness to congregation members
   Black Caribbeans .81(.61,1.09) −.206(.15) African Americans 1.23(.92,1.64) .206(.15) 4810
   Whites .52(.39,0.69)*** −.655(.14)*** Whites .64(.45,.91)* −.448(.17)*
Emotional support from congregation
   Black Caribbeans NA −.143(.06)** African Americans NA .143(.06)** 4771
   Whites NA −.079(.06) Whites NA .06(.09)
Negative interaction congregation
   Black Caribbeans NA −.088(.03)*** African Americans NA .088.(03)*** 4745
   Whites NA −.122(.03)*** Whites NA −.034(.14)
Open in a new tab
a

Multivariate analyses control for the effects of age, gender, marital status, education, imputed family income, material hardship, current welfare status, parental status, number of children in the household, number of adolescents in the household and region.

b

Logistic regression was used with the dichotomous dependent variables (family daily contact, friendship daily contact, congregation member daily contact and has fictive kin); negative binomial regression was used with number of family and congregation helpers as well as number of fictive kin; linear regression was used with the measures of emotional support and negative interaction; ordered regression was used with the remaining measures of informal support network involvement. For the negative binomial regressions, incidence rate ratios are reported instead of odds ratios.

Abbreviations: OR, odds ratio; CI, confidence interval. B,unstandardized regression coefficient; SE, standard error.

*

p < 0.05;

**

p < 0.01;

***

p < 0.001

Research on Black Caribbeans in the United States indicates that extended families are the primary social unit (Basch, 2001, 2007). One of the unique aspects of Black Caribbean extended families is that they are often geographically dispersed across several countries or transnational (Basch, 2001; Foner, 2005). As such, it is not uncommon for relatives to reside in locales as far-flung as Brooklyn, NY, London, and the country of origin. Kin and non-kin informal networks are a critical component of the migration process for Caribbean Blacks (Basch, 2001, 2007; Kasinitz, Waters, Mollenkopf & Anil, 2002). Family members rely on extended kin for help in saving money to launch migrations and to care for property and personal belongings while the migrant is away. Once in the United States, Black Caribbean immigrants co-reside with sponsors and are provided a variety of aid including housing and meals, clothing (especially items like winter apparel that are not needed in the Caribbean), public transportation passes, and assistance in securing employment (Bashi, 2007).

Focus of the Present Study

The present study examines differences between African Americans, non-Hispanic Whites and Caribbean Blacks in several measures of family, friendship, fictive kin, and religious congregation-based, informal support networks. The analysis is based on the National Survey of American Life, a nationally representative sample of these three race/ethnic groups. This analysis has several advantages over previous efforts. First, this study’s inclusion of Black Caribbeans, a small but significant portion of the Black population, is responsive to family researchers’ call to explore the ethnic diversity of the Black population in the United States (Batson, Qian & Litcher, 2006). Second, the study investigates not only family support networks, but also examines several non-kin networks. Third, this is one of only a handful of survey-based studies to examine fictive kin networks and the first to examine Black-White differences in those networks. Fourth, the study investigates congregation support networks, an under-examined source of assistance in the social support literature.

Fifth, both the receipt and provision of assistance to network members is explored which adds to the limited research on support provision especially in relation to Black-White differences (Sarkisian & Gertsel, 2004). Finally, because this study uses the family solidarity model to examine family and non-kin networks, it is able to explore distinct dimensions of these networks (e.g., interaction, affection, support), as well as negative interaction (i.e., criticism, burden), an area with little research on racial differences (Krause, 2006:195). Further, examining support relationships in relation to distinct population groups and using a common set of sociodemographic correlates, helps to clarify the nature of group differences.

METHODS

Sample

The National Survey of American Life: Coping with Stress in the 21st Century (NSAL) was collected by the Program for Research on Black Americans at the University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research (Jackson et al., 2004). The field work for the study was completed by the Institute for Social Research’s Survey Research Center, in cooperation with the Program for Research on Black Americans. A total of 6,082 interviews were conducted with persons aged 18 or older, including 3,570 African Americans, 891 non-Hispanic Whites, and 1,621 Blacks of Caribbean descent. The NSAL includes the first major probability sample of Caribbean Blacks ever conducted. For the purposes of this study, Caribbean Blacks are defined as persons who trace their ethnic heritage to a Caribbean country, but who now reside in the United States, are racially classified as Black, and who are English-speaking (but may also speak another language). The geographic distribution of the NSAL sample reflects the geographic distribution of African Americans and Black Caribbeans. African Americans are mostly located in the South and Northeast and North Central regions and Black Caribbeans are mostly located in the Northeast and some areas in the South (i.e., Florida)

The NSAL sample has a national multi-stage probability design with an overall response rate of 72.3%. Respondents were compensated for their time. The data collection was conducted from 2001 to 2003. Response rates for individual subgroups were 70.7% for African Americans, 77.7% for Caribbean Blacks, and 69.7% for non-Hispanic Whites. Final response rates for the NSAL two-phase sample designs were computed using the American Association of Public Opinion Research (AAPOR) guidelines (for Response Rate 3) (AAPOR, 2006) (see Jackson et al., 2004; Heeringa et al., 2004; for a more detailed discussion of the NSAL sample).

Measures

Dependent Variables

In total, there are 24 dependent variables representing selected measures of involvement in extended family, friendship, fictive kin and congregational informal social support networks. There are 8 dependent variables each for family and congregational support networks and an abbreviated set of variables regarding friends and fictive kin. The exact question wordings of these items and descriptive statistics are presented in Table 1. A portion of respondents, when asked how often they receive assistance from a specific group, volunteered that they have never needed assistance. Five percent (5.16%) of respondents volunteered that they never needed help from family members, 6.10% volunteered that they never needed help from friends, 5.54% for fictive kin and 17.76% of respondents volunteered that they never needed help from church members. Previous analyses indicate that persons who report that they’ve never needed assistance are conceptually and empirically distinct from respondents who either receive assistance or who indicate that they do not receive help (Taylor, 1990; Taylor & Chatters, 1988). Consequently, those who volunteered that they never needed help are excluded from the present analyses.

Table 1.

Question wording and Descriptive Information for the Indicators of Informal Social Support Network Involvement

Variable Range Mean SE
Number of family helpers How many people in your family would help you out if you needed help? 0–97 8.5 0.19
Family support received How often do people in your family -- including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on -- help you out? 1–4 2.81 0.03
Family support given How often do you help out people in your family -- including children, grandparents, aunts, uncles, in-laws and so on? 1–4 3.21 0.02
Family contact How often do you see, write or talk on the telephone with family or relatives who do not live with you? 1–7 6.05 0.03
Family daily contact Contrasts people who have contact with family nearly everyday with those who say less than nearly everyday. 0–1 0.45 0.01
Closeness to family How close do you feel towards your family members? 1–4 3.63 0.02
Family emotional support How often do your family members a) make you feel loved and cared for? b) listen to your problems? and c) express interest and concern in your well-being?” 1–4 3.27 0.02
Family negative interaction Other than your (spouse/partner) how often do your family members (people in your church): a) make too many demands on you? b) criticize you and the things you do? and c) try to take advantage of you? 1–4 1.78 0.02
Friendship contact How often do you see, write or talk on the telephone with your friends? 1–7 5.72 0.04
Friendship daily contact Contrasts people who have contact with friends nearly everyday with those who say less than nearly everyday. 0–1 0.39 0.01
Friendship support received How often do your friends help you out? 1–4 2.61 0.02
Friendship support given How often do you help out your friends? 1–4 2.84 0.01
Closeness to friends How close do you feel towards your friends? 1–4 3.32 0.01
Number of fictive kin How many people are close to your family who are not really blood related or marriage related but who are treated just like a relative? 0–100 7.54 0.23
Has fictive kin Contrasts people who do not have any fictive kin with those who have at least one fictive kin. 0–1 0.87 0.01
Fictive kin support received How often (do they/that person) help you out? 1–4 2.75 0.03
Number of congregation helpers How many people in your church (place of worship) would help you out if you needed help? 0–97 18.6 0.67
Congregation member contact How often do you see, write or talk on the telephone with people in your church (place of worship)? 1–7 3.54 0.64
Congregation member daily contact Contrasts those who have contact with people in their church nearly everyday with those who say less than nearly everyday. 0–1 0.18 0.01
Congregation support received How often do people in your church (place of worship) help you out? 1–4 2.38 0.04
Congregation support given How often do you help out people in your church (place of worship)? 1–4 2.53 0.02
Closeness to congregation members How close do you feel towards people in your church (place of worship)? 1–4 2.84 0.03
Emotional support from congregation How often do people in your church (place of worship): a) make you feel loved and cared for? b) listen to your problems? and c) express interest and concern in your well-being?” 1–4 2.91 0.03
Negative interaction congregation How often do people in your church (place of worship): a) make too many demands on you? b) criticize you and the things you do? and c) try to take advantage of you? 1–4 1.44 0.01
Open in a new tab

Two items, emotional support and negative interaction, are assessed for both family and congregation members using an index of 3 items. Emotional Support from Family generated a Cronbach’s Alpha of .75; Emotional Support from Congregation Members generated a Cronbach’s Alpha of .76. Negative Interaction with Family produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of .73; Negative Interaction with Congregation Members produced a Cronbach’s Alpha of .72.

The congregational support items were not asked of respondents who attended religious services less than once a year. Eighteen percent of African Americans (18.2%), 20.91% of Black Caribbeans and 28.08% of non-Hispanic Whites indicated that they attended religious services less than once per year. Finally, respondents who indicated that they did not have fictive kin (10.8% of respondents) were not asked the question concerning frequency of support from fictive kin.

Independent Variables

Several socioeconomic status and demographic factors are utilized as independent variables: education, income, material hardship, public assistance, age, gender, marital status, parental status, number of children age 12 and younger in the household, number of adolescents (age 13–17) in the household, and region. Education and income are measured continuously. Missing data for family income were imputed for 773 cases (12.7% of the NSAL sample). Missing data for education were imputed for 74 cases. Imputations were completed using Answer Tree in SPSS. Imputations were conducted using an iterative regression-based multiple imputation approach incorporating information about age, sex, region, race, employment status, marital status, home ownership, and nativity of household residents. Material hardship is a summary score comprised of 7 items assessing whether or not respondents could meet basic expenses, pay full rent or mortgage, pay full utilities, had utilities disconnected, had telephone disconnected, were evicted for non-payment, or could not afford leisure activities in the past 12 months. A higher score on this item indicates higher levels of economic hardship (Cronbach’s Alpha =.76). Public assistance is measured by the question, “Are you (or your family) currently receiving public assistance (i.e., welfare, Aid to Families with Dependent Children, General Assistance, or Temporary Assistance for Needy Families).

Characteristics of the Sample

African Americans comprise 58.91% of the sample, non-Hispanic Whites comprise 14.7% of the sample and Black Caribbeans comprise the remaining 26.39%. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 94 years (M = 43.57 and SE =.69) and a slight majority of them are women (54.13%). Forty percent of the respondents are married (40.25%), one quarter have never been married (26.81%), one in ten are divorced (12.31%) and the remainder are separated, widowed or living with a partner. Seven out of ten respondents (70.3%) were parents, 27.9% of respondents had a child 12 or under living in their household and 17.4% of respondents had an adolescent (13–17) living in their household. The mean number of children in the household is .49 (SE = .03) and the mean number of adolescents in the household is .23 (SE = .01). Slightly more than half (54.48%) of the sample reside in the South. With regard to socioeconomic status, the average imputed family income is $42,418 (SE = 2059) and the average number of years of education is 12.89 (SE =.156). The range of scores for material hardship is 0–7 and the mean was .77 (SE = .03). One in twenty respondents (4.4%) was currently receiving welfare or some other form of public assistance.

Analysis Strategy

Regression analyses are conducted to examine race and ethnic differences in informal support networks controlling for sociodemographic characteristics. Logistic regression was used with the four dichotomous dependent variables (daily family contact, daily friend contact, daily contact with a congregation member and have fictive kin); linear regression was used with the two emotional support and two negative interaction variables; negative binomial regression was used with the count variables (number of family helpers, number of congregational helpers and size of the fictive kin network). Ordered logit regression was used for the remaining dependent variables. Odds ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals are presented in addition to the regression coefficients for logistic and ordered logit analysis. For the negative binomial analysis, incidence rate ratios and 95% confidence intervals are also presented in addition to the regression coefficients. Two sets of regressions are conducted in which race/ethnicity is represented by a set of dummy variables. In the first, African American is used as the excluded or comparison category, while in the second, Black Caribbean is the excluded or comparison category. All of the analyses incorporate the sample’s race adjusted weights. Weights in the NSAL data account for unequal probabilities of selection, non-response, and post-stratification such that respondents are weighted to their numbers and proportions in the full population (Heeringa et al., 2004). In addition, all analyses were conducted using STATA 10 which uses the Taylor expansion technique for calculating the complex-design based estimates of variance (Lee & Forthofer, 2006). This was done to correct for the fact that most statistics are based on the assumption of a simple random sample but the NSAL (like most national probability samples) has a complex multi-stage sample design. Consequently, not adjusting for the complex design in the NSAL would lead to biased and misleading results (Lee & Forthofer, 2006).

RESULTS

Table 2 presents the regression coefficients for the effects of race/ethnicity on the informal social support variables. Race/ethnicity is represented by a dummy variable with African Americans as the excluded category in regression results reported in Column 1; Black Caribbeans are designated as the excluded category in regression results reported in Column 2. For each dependent variable, the regression models assess the impact of race/ethnicity, while controlling for the effects of sociodemographic factors (i.e., age, gender, marital status, education, family income, parental status, number of children in the household, number of adolescents in the household, material hardship, public assistance, and region).

Family Network

There were no significant differences between African Americans, Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites for frequency of receiving support from family, frequency of emotional support, frequency of negative interaction, degree of subjective family closeness, and the number of family members who would provide assistance if needed. African Americans reported significantly more frequent contact with family members than Black Caribbeans and were more likely to have daily interaction with family members than both Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites. African Americans also reported that they gave help to family members more often than non-Hispanic Whites.

Friendship Network

Several significant race and ethic differences were noted for the friendship network variables. Non-Hispanic Whites interacted with their friends more frequently and gave support to their friends more frequently than African Americans. Additionally, non-Hispanic Whites received help from their friends more frequently than both African Americans and Black Caribbeans. There were no significant differences between African Americans, Black Caribbeans and Non-Hispanic Whites in the level of subjective closeness to friends and reports of daily interaction with friends.

Fictive Kin Network

Several significant differences in involvement with fictive kin were found. Both African Americans and Black Caribbeans were more likely to have fictive kin than non-Hispanic Whites. African Americans and Black Caribbeans also reported having a significantly larger number of fictive kin than did non-Hispanic Whites. There were no significant differences between African Americans and Black Caribbeans in the probability of having fictive kin in their family or the number of fictive kin. Non-Hispanic Whites received support from fictive kin more frequently than both African Americans and Black Caribbeans.

Congregation Network

Several significant race and ethnic differences for congregation network variables were observed. African Americans gave assistance to members of their congregation more frequently and had more frequent negative interactions with them than either Non-Hispanic Whites or Black Caribbeans. In comparison to non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans interacted with their congregation network more frequently and, in comparison to Black Caribbeans, African Americans indicated receiving emotional support from congregation members more frequently. Both African Americans and Black Caribbeans reported being subjectively closer to the members of their congregation than non-Hispanic Whites. There were no significant ethnic or racial differences for rate of daily contact with church members, the number of congregation helpers, or the frequency of receiving support from congregation members.

DISCUSSION

Family Support Networks

Turning first to findings for family support networks, four significant differences were observed in this analysis. African Americans gave assistance to their family members more often than non-Hispanic Whites, were more likely to have daily contact with their extended family members than both non-Hispanic Whites and Black Caribbeans, and had more frequent interactions with their family than Black Caribbeans. Three general conclusions can be drawn from these findings for family assistance and interaction. First, these findings are consistent with prior work indicating that African Americans have similar or higher levels of involvement with kin than non-Hispanic Whites, but are inconsistent with reports that African Americans have lower levels of family support than Whites (e.g., Hogan et al., 1993). As noted in previous reviews of this literature (Sarkisian & Gertsel, 2004), comparisons across studies are problematic given important differences in the dependent variables used. The present study’s investigation of several dimensions of family support relationships (e.g., enacted support, emotional support, contact, negative interaction) in diverse groups of the population and using a common set of sociodemographic correlates clarifies the nature of race/ethnic differences in these relationships.

Second, these findings refute the notion that African American kinship networks have significantly weakened. Several researchers argued that, during the 1980s and 1990s, African Americans’ kin support networks declined as a result of high unemployment, high poverty rates and other structural issues (e.g., Roschelle, 1997). For instance, Hogan et al. (1993:1454) argued that “The effective kin network that provided support to multigenerational, matrifocal black families in past decades appears to be of limited relevance today.” The current findings clearly indicate that African American kin remain involved in family support networks despite the historical and contemporaneous challenges faced by this group.

Finally, Black Caribbeans had less frequent interaction and were less likely to have daily interaction with family members than African Americans. This finding is consistent with ethnographic work in which high levels of geographic dispersion among many Black Caribbean extended families (Basch, 2001; Foner, 2005) results in less frequent contact with family members. However, despite less frequent interaction among Black Caribbean families, they were no different than African Americans with respect to reported levels of family support that was given or received.

Further, despite more frequent contact and support provision to family members, African Americans were no different from other groups in receiving aid from family. This may be the case for several reasons. First, despite strong norms for reciprocity in support relationships, these exchanges may in fact be asymmetrical, with respondents giving more than they receive. The related finding that African Americans have greater daily contact with family members would provide the opportunity for support needs to be voiced and acknowledged. Second, there may be a bias to under-estimate support that is received from family. When family members see each other on a very frequent basis, things like companionship, meal preparation, and assistance when ill may be viewed as expected activities and, thus, underestimated. Finally, related to this, African Americans may be somewhat more likely to provide what has been termed “invisible support” (see Bolger, Zuckerman & Kessler, 2000). That is, support that is provided in an unobtrusive manner such that it is invisible to the recipient. Racial and ethnic differences in perceptions of support (given and received) is an area where future quantitative and qualitative research is needed.

Friendship and Fictive Kin Networks

Several significant differences in friendship networks were observed in this analysis. Non-Hispanic Whites interacted with their friends and gave support to their friends more frequently than African Americans. Additionally, non-Hispanic Whites received support from friends more frequently than both African Americans and Black Caribbeans. Many of the differences between African Americans and non-Hispanic Whites could reflect basic differences in their levels of involvement in friendship networks. For instance, 16.7% of African Americans, 16.1 % of Black Caribbeans and 9.7% of non-Hispanic Whites report that they never receive help from friends. Similarly, African Americans (11%) were twice as likely as non-Hispanic Whites (4.7%) to indicate that they hardly ever or never interact with friends. Lower levels of involvement with friends among African Americans could be due to estrangement from friends, isolation from friends or exclusive involvement with kinship networks (Ajrouch et al., 2001). Collectively, these results, and previous research (Griffin et al., 2006; Waite & Harrison, 1992), indicate that, non-Hispanic Whites are more likely than African Americans to interact with friendship networks and to identify friends as an important source of support.

Turning to fictive kin, ethnographic research on Black families clearly notes the importance of fictive kin in support networks (see review by Chatters et al., 1994). Consequently, fictive kin are thought to play a more prominent role in the informal support networks of African Americans than non-Hispanic Whites. However, ethnographic accounts of White families also note the importance of fictive kin, although in most cases, the term fictive kin is not used to describe these relationships. In the current analysis, 9 out of 10 respondents indicated that their family network had a fictive kin relation. Overall, African Americans and Black Caribbeans were more likely to have fictive kin and a larger number of fictive kin in their networks than non-Hispanic Whites. However, non-Hispanic Whites reported receiving informal support from their fictive kin more often than either African Americans or Black Caribbeans. Given the paucity of research in this area, an additional variable for frequency of support was created which includes both respondents who had and did not have fictive kin in their family. Additional analysis did not find any race or ethnic differences in the frequency of receiving support from fictive kin (analysis not shown). The findings suggest that although non-Hispanic Whites are less likely to have fictive kin in their networks, those with fictive kin may have stronger ties to them. Collectively, these findings indicate that, across race and ethnic groups, fictive kin are a common feature of family networks and their role as sources of support is more nuanced than previously thought.

Congregation Support Networks

Overall, the most notable race and ethnic differences were observed for congregation support networks. In comparison to non-Hispanic Whites, African Americans interacted with their congregation members more frequently, were subjectively closer to their church members, and gave assistance to their church members more often. Collectively, these findings are consistent with research indicating the importance of religion (Taylor et al., 2004) and church support networks (Taylor et al., 2005) to African Americans, as well as Krause’s work (2002) indicating that older African Americans had higher levels of involvement with their congregation-based networks than older Whites. Collectively, these findings indicate that church support networks play a more prominent role in the daily life of African Americans than non-Hispanic Whites.

Ethnic differences indicated that African Americans both gave overall support and received higher levels of emotional support from their congregation members than did Caribbean Blacks. Black Caribbeans also had less frequent contact with congregation members than African Americans, but this relationship only bordered significance (p=.07). Collectively, these findings indicate higher levels of involvement with congregation support networks among African Americans than among Black Caribbeans.

African Americans also indicated having significantly more frequent negative interactions with their congregation members than non-Hispanic Whites and Caribbean Blacks, which may be a consequence of the higher levels of contact they have with this group. That is, the more a person interacts with the members of their support network, the higher likelihood of encountering negative interactions. The present findings, in conjunction with previous work (Akiyama, Antonucci, Takahashi & Langfahl, 2003), indicate that more frequent interactions with support network members increases the opportunity for both the receipt of assistance (Taylor et al., 2005), as well as negative interactions. Conversely, not participating in family and congregation networks decreases the potential for negative interactions, but also decreases opportunities for provision of assistance.

Kin and Non-Kin Networks

Several general conclusions can be drawn from the findings of this study. First, in order to fully understand the composition of informal support networks, it is important to examine both kin and non-kin sources of informal support. Second, despite a continuation of and, in some cases, a worsening of serious structural problems (i.e., employment rates, poverty rates) for African Americans, informal support networks remain critically important in providing assistance to individuals. Third, this analysis of global, general support found that, overall, African Americans, Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites have somewhat different configurations of informal support networks. African Americans and Black Caribbeans were largely similar in network configurations with no significant differences in friendship and fictive kin networks and only one significant difference in family networks. Both African Americans and Black Caribbeans had a support advantage relative to non-Hispanic Whites for the likelihood of having fictive kin and the size of fictive kin networks. In contrast, non-Hispanic Whites had a support advantage with regard to receiving assistance from fictive kin. African Americans were more involved in congregation support networks than both non-Hispanic Whites and Black Caribbeans, whereas non-Hispanic Whites were more involved with and received more support from friendship networks.

Fourth, irrespective of race or ethnicity, overall a greater percentage of respondents received help from and were involved with family than was the case for either friendship or congregational networks. Although lower percentages of respondents received assistance from congregation members, congregation-based informal support should not be underestimated. Recent research indicates that among Black Americans, receiving emotional support from congregation members was positively associated with life satisfaction (Krause, 2004) and is a protective factor against suicidal behavior (Chatters et al., 2011). Fifth, the study’s use of constructs from the family solidarity model allowed the exploration of multiple dimensions of kin and non-kin relationships (e.g., interaction, closeness, given/received support) and provided a multifaceted perspective on these relations. Overall, the findings provided important information about commonalities and divergences in kin and non-kin support networks across and within race/ethnicity groups.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The current study’s findings point to several important implications for practice with racially and ethnically diverse families. First, the focus on four different types of informal networks—extended family, friendship, fictive kin and religious support networks—attests to the range and breadth of supportive relationships and resources that are available to individuals. Social welfare and human services practice with individuals and families primarily relies on identifying and utilizing kin relations and networks and, indeed, this study confirmed a preference for family sources of aid. However, it is clear that individuals interact with and receive substantial aid from non-kin sources that remain largely unrecognized in psychosocial assessments and underutilized in intervention planning. Identification of non-kin networks and sources of aid (church networks, friends) is particularly important for individuals who may be emotionally or geographically distant from kin networks. In these circumstances, non-kin networks may function as supplemental sources of assistance. Second, both kin and non-kin relationships and networks are characterized by different factors (e.g., assistance given and received, interaction/contact, emotional support, affective closeness, negative interaction) that are important for assessing their accessibility, suitability and viability with regard to support provision. Information of this sort is crucial in developing profiles of specific support networks (e.g., high interaction/low support provision) and identifying those that have the greatest potential for the development of interventions involving kin and non-kin networks that are both sensitive to individual preferences and appropriate to the circumstances.

Third, the findings for congregation-based networks of African Americans provide practitioners several insights into this important community institution. African Americans are deeply embedded in these networks as both providers and recipients of general assistance and emotional support. However, practitioners should be aware that African Americans may also have conflicted relationships with church networks as reflected in negative interactions. Church networks often place great demands of time and effort on members that may lead to interpersonal conflict. Further, clients that are experiencing problems in socially sensitive areas (e.g., family and marital difficulties, substance use) may come under intense scrutiny by other church members and be subject to criticism and sanctions. Consequently, any assessment of church networks as part of an overall plan for developing informal supports for clients should evaluate the interpersonal dynamics of these networks to ensure that they can be helpful resources.

LIMITATIONS AND CONCLUSION

The study has several limitations that are worth noting. First, the full battery of social support measures was not asked of friends and fictive kin. Second, the non-Hispanic White sample does not reflect the regional distribution of the White population, and instead reflects the regional distribution of the African American population. Consequently, the design of this sample maximizes the overlap in geographic distribution with the African American sample for the purposes of Black-White comparisons, but not for subgroup analysis of Whites. Lastly, the Black Caribbean sample excludes individuals who do not speak English (i.e., persons who only speak Spanish, Haitian-French, or Creole dialects); consequently, the study findings are not generalizable to these groups of Caribbean Blacks. Despite these limitations, the significant advantages of the sample and the examination of several sources of informal support provided a unique opportunity to examine race/ethnicity differences in support networks across these three groups.

This study’s attempt to develop a more nuanced understanding of differences between African Americans, Black Caribbeans and non-Hispanic Whites in informal social support networks represents only a preliminary effort in appreciating these relationships. Although the current investigation addressed questions of basic group differences, it is also critical to supplement this information with research focusing on within group differences in the structure and functioning of informal social support networks. A limited focus on between group differences provides little information beyond the fact of dissimilarities in the basic features of support networks and relationships. Further, using a solely comparative framework overlooks the inherent heterogeneity that exists within these groups (Taylor, 1985). Ultimately, studies examining the correlates of informal social support, both within and across Black Caribbeans, African Americans, and Whites, will help to disentangle the complex associations between race, ethnicity, and social support within and across these important population groups.

Contributor Information

Robert Joseph Taylor, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106, Phone: 734-936-2618, rjtaylor@umich.edu

Linda M. Chatters, School of Public Health, School of Social Work, University of Michigan, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106, Phone: 734-647-2178, chatters@umich.edu

Amanda Toler Woodward, School of Social Work, Michigan State University, 655 Auditorium Road, East Lansing, MI 48824, Phone: 517-432-8702, awoodwar@msu.edu

Edna Brown, Department of Human Development & Family Studies, University of Connecticut, 348 Mansfield Rd., U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269-1058, Phone: 860-486-2781, edna.brown@uconn.edu

References

  1. Akiyama H, Antonucci T, Takahashi K, Langfahl ES. Negative interactions in close relationships across the life span. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences. 2003;58B(2):70–79. doi: 10.1093/geronb/58.2.p70. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Ajrouch KJ, Antonucci TC, Janevic MR. Social networks among blacks and whites: The interaction between race and age. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2001;56(2):S112–S118. doi: 10.1093/geronb/56.2.s112. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. American Association for Public Opinion Research. Standard Definitions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys. 4th edition. Lenexa, Kansas: AAPOR; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  4. Basch L. Transnational social relations and the politics of national identity: An Eastern Caribbean case study. In: Foner N, editor. Islands in the city: West Indian migration to New York. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 2001. pp. 117–141. [Google Scholar]
  5. Bashi VF. Survival of the knitted: Immigrant social networks in a stratified world. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press; 2007. [Google Scholar]
  6. Batson CB, Qian Z, Lichter DT. Interracial and intraracial patterns of mate selection among America’s diverse Black population. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2006;68(3):658–672. [Google Scholar]
  7. Bengtson V, Giarrusso R, Mabry JB, Silverstein M. Solidarity, conflict, and ambivalence: Complementary or competing perspectives on intergenerational relationships? Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002;64:568–576. [Google Scholar]
  8. Benin M, Keith VM. The social support of employed African American and Anglo mothers. Journal of Family Issues. 1995;16(3):275–297. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bolger N, Zuckerman A, Kessler RC. Invisible support and adjustment to stress. Journal of. Personality and Social Psychology. 2000;79:953–961. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.79.6.953. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chatters LM, Taylor RJ, Lincoln KD, Nguyen A, Joe S. Church-Based Social Support and Suicidiality among African Americans and Black Caribbeans. Archives of Suicide Research. 2011;15:337–353. doi: 10.1080/13811118.2011.615703. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Chatters LM, Taylor RJ, Lincoln KD, Schroepfer T. Patterns of informal support from family and church members among African Americans. Journal of Black Studies. 2002;33(1):66–85. [Google Scholar]
  12. Chatters LM, Taylor RJ, Jayakody R. Fictive kinship relations in black extended families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 1994;25:197–313. [Google Scholar]
  13. Cohen S, Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2000. [Google Scholar]
  14. Connidis Ingrid, McMullin JA. Ambivalence, family ties, and doing sociology. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2002.;64:594–601. [Google Scholar]
  15. Dilworth-Anderson P, Williams I, Gibson BE. Issues of race, ethnicity, and culture in caregiving research: A 20-year review (1980–2000) Gerontologist. 2002;42(2):237–272. doi: 10.1093/geront/42.2.237. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eggebeen DJ. Family structure and intergenerational exchanges. Research on Aging. 1992;14(4):427–447. [Google Scholar]
  17. Foner N. In a new land: A comparative view of immigration. New York: New York University Press; 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Gerstel N, Gallagher S. Caring for kith and kin: Gender, employment, and the privatization of care. Social Problems. 1994;41(4):519–539. [Google Scholar]
  19. Griffin ML, Amodeo M, Clay C, Fassler I, Ellis MA. Racial differences in social support: Kin versus friends. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2006;76(3):374–380. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.76.3.374. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Gutman HG. The black family in slavery and freedom 1750–1925. New York: Random House; 1976. [Google Scholar]
  21. Hatch LR. Informal support patterns of older African American and white women: Examining effects of family, paid work, and religious participation. Research on Aging. 1991;13(2):144–170. [Google Scholar]
  22. Heeringa SG, Wagner J, Torres M, Duan N, Adams T, Berglund P. Sample designs and sampling methods for the collaborative psychiatric epidemiology studies (CPES) International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2004;13:221–240. doi: 10.1002/mpr.179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Hogan DP, Eggebeen DJ, Clogg CC. The structure of intergenerational exchanges in American families. American Journal of Sociology. 1993;98(6):1428–1458. [Google Scholar]
  24. Hogan DP, Hao L, Parish WL. Race, kin networks, and assistance to mother-headed families. Social Forces. 1990;68(3):797–812. [Google Scholar]
  25. Jackson JS, Torres M, Caldwell CH, Neighbors HW, Nesse RM, Taylor RJ, et al. The National Survey of American Life: A study of racial, ethnic and cultural influences on mental disorders and mental health. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 2004;13(4):196–207. doi: 10.1002/mpr.177. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Jayakody R. Race differences in intergenerational financial assistance: The needs of children and the resources of parents. Journal of Family Issues. 1998;19(5):508–533. [Google Scholar]
  27. Johnson CL, Barer BM. Childlessness and kinship organization: Comparisons of very old whites and blacks. Journal of Cross-Cultural Gerontology. 1995;10(4):289–306. doi: 10.1007/BF00972330. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Kasinitz P, Waters MC, Mollenkopf JH, Anil M. Transnationalism and the children of immigrants in contemporary New York. In: Levitt P, Waters MC, editors. The changing face of home: The transnational lives of the second generation. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2002. pp. 96–122. [Google Scholar]
  29. Keith PM, Kim S, Schafer RB. Informal ties of the unmarried in middle and later life: Who has them and who does not? Sociological Spectrum. 2000;20(2):221–238. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kim HK, McKenry PC. Social networks and support: A comparison of African Americans, Asian Americans, Caucasians, and Hispanics. Journal of Comparative Family Studies. 1998;29(2):313–334. [Google Scholar]
  31. Krause N. Exploring race differences in a comprehensive battery of church-based social support measures. Review of Religious Research. 2002;44(2):126–149. [Google Scholar]
  32. Krause N. Common facets of religion, unique facets of religion, and life satisfaction among older African Americans. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 2004;59:S109–S117. doi: 10.1093/geronb/59.2.s109. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Krause N. Social relationships in late life. In: Binstock RH, George LK, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 2006. pp. 181–200. [Google Scholar]
  34. Lee EL, Forthofer RN. Analyzing Complex Survey Data. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  35. Lincoln KD. Social support, negative social interactions, and psychological well-being. Social Service Review. 2000;74(2):231–252. doi: 10.1086/514478. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lincoln CE, Mamiya LH. The Black Church in the African American experience. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  37. Logan JR, Deane G. Black diversity in metropolitan America. State University of New York, Albany, NY: Mumford Center for Comparative Urban and Regional Research; 2003. [Google Scholar]
  38. Mac Rae H. Fictive kin as a component of the social networks of older people. Research on Aging. 1992;14(2):226–247. [Google Scholar]
  39. McChesney KY, Bengtson VL. Solidarity, integration, and cohesion in families: Concepts and theories. In: Mangen DJ, Bengtson VL, Landry PH Jr, editors. Measurement of intergenerational relations. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications; 1988. pp. 15–30. [Google Scholar]
  40. Mutran E. Intergenerational family support among blacks and whites: Response to culture or to socioeconomic differences. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1985;40(3):S382–S389. doi: 10.1093/geronj/40.3.382. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Nye F, Rushing W. Toward family measurement research. In: Hadden J, Borgatta E, editors. Marriage and family. Itasca, IL: F.E. Peacock; 1969. pp. 133–140. [Google Scholar]
  42. Peek MK, Coward RT, Peek CW. Race, aging, and care: Can differences in family and household structure account for race variations in informal care? Research on Aging. 2000;22(2):117–142. [Google Scholar]
  43. Peek MK, O'Neill GS. Networks in later life: An examination of race differences in social support networks. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 2001;52(3):207–229. doi: 10.2190/F1Q1-JV7D-VN77-L6WX. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Perry CM, Johnson CL. Families and support networks among African American oldest-old. International Journal of Aging and Human Development. 1994;38(1):41–50. doi: 10.2190/UQKB-EL57-TN8R-3W1A. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Pugliesi K, Shook SL. Gender, ethnicity, and network characteristics: Variation in social support resources. Sex Roles. 1998;38(3–4):215–238. [Google Scholar]
  46. Roschelle AR. No more kin : Exploring race, class, and gender in family networks. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage Publications; 1997. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sarkisian N, Gerstel N. Kin support among blacks and whites: Race and family organization. American Sociological Review. 2004 Dec;69:812–837. [Google Scholar]
  48. Silverstein M, Waite LJ. Are blacks more likely than whites to receive and provide social support in middle and old age? Yes, no, maybe so. The Journals of Gerontology Series B, Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences. 1993;48(4):S212–S222. doi: 10.1093/geronj/48.4.s212. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Sussman MB. The family life of old people. In: Binstock R, Shanas E, editors. Handbook of aging and the social sciences. New York: Van Norstrand Reinhold; 1976. pp. 218–243. [Google Scholar]
  50. Taylor RJ. The extended family as a source of support to elderly blacks. The Gerontologist. 1985;25(5):488–495. doi: 10.1093/geront/25.5.488. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Taylor RJ. Receipt of support from family among black Americans: Demographic and familial differences. Journal of Marriage and Family. 1986;48(1):67–77. [Google Scholar]
  52. Taylor RJ. Need for support and family involvement among Black Americans. Journal of Marriage and the Family. 1990;52:584–590. [Google Scholar]
  53. 53.Taylor RJ, Chatters LM. Church members as a source of informal social support. Review of Religious Research. 1988;30:193–203. [Google Scholar]
  54. Taylor RJ, Chatters LM, Celious AK. Extended family households among black Americans. African American Research Perspectives. 2003;9(1):133–151. [Google Scholar]
  55. Taylor RJ, Chatters LM, Levin JS. Religion in the lives of African Americans: Social, psychological and health perspectives. Newbury Park: Sage; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  56. Taylor RJ, Lincoln KD, Chatters LM. Supportive relationships with church members among African Americans. Family Relations. 2005;54(4):501–511. [Google Scholar]
  57. Waite LJ, Harrison SC. Keeping in touch: How women in mid-life allocate social contacts among kith and kin. Social Forces. 1992;70(3):637–654. [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES