Ego centered social network and

relationship quality_ linking attachment

security and relational models to
network structure Eszter Berán &
Csaba Pléh & Péter Soltész & Anna
Rácz & Péter Kardos & Pál Czobor &
Zsolt Unoka
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/ego-centered-social-network-and-relationship-quality
_-linking-attachment-security-and-relational-models-to-network-structure-eszter-beran
-csaba-pleh-peter-soltesz-anna-racz-peter-kardos-pal/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Elsevier Weekblad - Week 26 - 2022 Gebruiker

https://ebookmass.com/product/elsevier-weekblad-
week-26-2022-gebruiker/

Jock Seeks Geek: The Holidates Series Book #26 Jill

Brashear

https://ebookmass.com/product/jock-seeks-geek-the-holidates-
series-book-26-jill-brashear/

The New York Review of Books – N. 09, May 26 2022

Various Authors

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-new-york-review-of-
books-n-09-may-26-2022-various-authors/

Calculate with Confidence, 8e (Oct 26,

2021)_(0323696953)_(Elsevier) 8th Edition Morris Rn
Bsn Ma Lnc

https://ebookmass.com/product/calculate-with-
confidence-8e-oct-26-2021_0323696953_elsevier-8th-edition-morris-
rn-bsn-ma-lnc/
1 st International Congress and Exhibition on
Sustainability in Music, Art, Textile and Fashion
(ICESMATF 2023) January, 26-27 Madrid, Spain Exhibition
Book 1st Edition Tatiana Lissa
https://ebookmass.com/product/1-st-international-congress-and-
exhibition-on-sustainability-in-music-art-textile-and-fashion-
icesmatf-2023-january-26-27-madrid-spain-exhibition-book-1st-
edition-tatiana-lissa/

5G Wireless Network Security and Privacy Dongfeng Fang

https://ebookmass.com/product/5g-wireless-network-security-and-
privacy-dongfeng-fang/

Understanding Self-Injury: A Person-Centered Approach

Stephen P. Lewis

https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-self-injury-a-person-
centered-approach-stephen-p-lewis-2/

Network security essentials: applications and standards

William Stallings

https://ebookmass.com/product/network-security-essentials-
applications-and-standards-william-stallings/

Understanding Self-injury. A Person-Centered Approach

Stephen P. Lewis

https://ebookmass.com/product/understanding-self-injury-a-person-
centered-approach-stephen-p-lewis/
 Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socnet

Ego centered social network and relationship quality: linking attachment T

security and relational models to network structure
⁎
Eszter Berána, , Csaba Pléhb, Péter Soltésza, Anna Ráczc, Péter Kardosd, Pál Czoborc, Zsolt Unokac
a
Pázmány Péter Catholic University, Psychology Institute, Budapest, Mikszáth tér 1., 1088 Hungary
b
Central European University, Budapest, Oktober 6 street 7, Budapest, 1051, Hungary
c
Semmelweis University, Department of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Budapest, Balassa u. 6., 1083 Hungary
d
Bloomfield College, NJ, USA

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: According to Dunbar’s social brain hypothesis, brain capacity puts a limit on the size of social network in
ego-centered social network humans. At the same time, emotional-cognitive systems such as attachment and different relational models
attachment (Fiske, 1991) may also act as driving forces behind network structure underlying relationship quality of the
relational models various ego-centered layers. The aim of our study was to examine how these cognitive systems may contribute to
network structure
network organization.
We examined the two inner layers of the ego-network in 274 volunteers, the support and sympathy groups, as
well as close family members in comparison to friends within the support group, in terms of attachment security
and underlying relational models.

Brain capacity needed for the formation of individualized relation-
ships puts a limit on social network size in humans (Dunbar & Shultz,
2010; Shultz & Dunbar, 2010). The size and characteristics of various
ego-centered network layers consisting of individual relationships differ
according to the nature of the relationship between the individual
(referred to as the „ego”) and the related person (referred to as the
„alter”) (Hill and Dunbar, 2003). The inner layers consist of the support
group (close friends and kin, 1-5 people) and the sympathy group
(friends, intimate relations, 12-15 people). Relationships in the support
group are characterized by high emotional closeness, and frequent
personal contact.
At the same time, network organization may also be driven by
emotional-cognitive systems underlying relationship quality, like the
attachment system (Bowlby, 1969), and relational models (Fiske,
1991). Quality of attachment to alters may be an important factor
driving ego-centered network organization, influencing the position of
alters in the inner layers. Other such influential factors may be rela-
tional models (RM). RM theory posits that people employ four ele-
mentary cognitive models in interpreting social interactions and re-
lating to others in most aspects of most social interaction in all societies
(Fiske & Haslam, 1996).
Our research questions are centered on the problem of how network
structure may be related to various cognitive relational measures such
as attachment quality and RMs. More specifically, we examined the
above mentioned two inner layers of the ego-centered network in terms
of differentiating them based on relationship quality measured by these
two emotional cognitive systems as well as other measures of network
organization related to attachment, such as, for example, level of trust,
and conflict, or fear of abandonment in relationship.
Psychological interpretation of network variability
According to Dunbar’s social brain hypothesis (Dunbar, 1998;
Dunbar, & Shultz, 2007) the size of the neo-cortex in primates and
humans is determined by the computational demands necessary for
fulfilling those social functions individuals play in large complex social
networks. Dunbar drew this conclusion by examining primates and
finding that the size of the neo-cortex is related to maximal group size
(Dunbar, 1993). Larger group size has an evolutionary advantage
against predators and in competing with other groups. However, since
both primates and humans relate to each other on an individual basis,
there is a need for a larger neo-cortex in order to enable the neural
mechanisms for cognitive systems necessary to maintain social re-
lationships, such as memory-systems (Stiller, & Dunbar, 2007), at-
tachment system (Machin, & Dunbar, 2011; Dunbar & Shultz, 2010;
Nummenmaa et al., 2015), theory of mind (i.e. mentalizing, Dunbar
and Dunbar, 1998; Dunbar, 2003; Stiller, & Dunbar, 2007), and rela-
tional models (Fiske, 1991). Mentalizing, for example, is crucial in

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: beran.eszter@btk.ppke.hu (E. Berán).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2018.07.002

Available online 01 August 2018

0378-8733/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
E. Berán et al. Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

of the social network endowing both partners of the attachment re-

lationship (child-parent, relatives, friends, and romantic partners) with
specific motivational, behavioral, emotional and cognitive mechanism,
as well as communicational cues to coordinate their interactions and to
maximize their reproductive or inclusive fitness (Simpson & Belsky,
2008). In attachment research it was consistently found that the po-
tential numbers of attachment figures are not limitless, and their
number is similar to the size of the support group (3-5 individuals).
Infants observed in diverse cultures such as Nigeria (Marvin et al.,
1977) and Germany (Grossmann & Grossmann, 1991) were attached to
no more than three or four attachment figures, and American young
adults had three to six attachment bonds (Trinke, & Bartholomew,
1997). Although most humans have multiple attachment figures,
Bowlby (1958, 1969/1982) proposed that there is a strong tendency for
infants to prefer a principal attachment figure for comfort and security,
Fig. 1. Dunbar’s model of the ego-centered social network layers. which he called ‘monotropy’. However, several studies have indicated
that an infant can form different types of attachments to different
caregivers (e.g., Belsky & Rovine, 1987; Grossmann et al., 1981; Main &
keeping up social relationships, because it involves modeling others’
Weston, 1981), thus questioning the monthropical model. Bowlby also
mind-states. However, the cognitive costs of mentalizing put a con-
claims that attachment (both in terms of the behavioral system and the
straint on group size: Stiller and Dunbar (2007) has shown that the size
need for attachment) continues into adulthood and includes important
of the support group is influenced by the individual’s mentalizing skills,
attachment figures other than parents. Thus, a person could develope
whereas the size of the sympathy group is influenced by the individual’s
multiple internalised working models and is able to flexibly update
memory capacity.
them (Bowlby, 1980, 1988).
Dunbar and his coworkers, thus, describe human network organi-
According to the social network model of attachment, the various
zations as having an evolutionary origin (Dunbar & Shultz, 2010; Hill &
systems of relationships develop in a parallel manner in order to satisfy
Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar, 1998), which has developed as a result of early
various needs of the individual (Lewis, 2005; La Guardia et al., 2000).
humanoids living in large groups of a size of 130 – 150 individuals.
Each person from infanthood to adulthood develops close relationships
According to Dunbar and Spoors (1995), the maximum group size
simultaneously within and outside of the family (Antonucci et al. 2004).
surrounding an individual ego in today’s society is similar to ancient
The intimate relationships, which survival is based on, do not consist of
communities or tribes. They suggest that within this large group there
only asymmetric relationships (e.g.: child-caregiver), but also of sym-
are several smaller groups or „layers” surrounding the ego in concentric
metric ones (peer relations). Different relationship categories may serve
circles (see Fig. 1). As Fig. 1 shows, the number of individuals in
distinct attachment functions and have different evolutionary benefits.
hierarchically organized groups surrounding the ego increases by about
For example, the caregiving system is involved in both familial re-
a scalar of three from the inside towards the outside (Zhou et al., 2005).
lationships and romantic relationships, and the sociability and ex-
Ego-centered layers differ from each other also according to their
ploratory systems are possibly more dominant in friendships (Marvin &
function. Inner layers are there for the individual to provide emotional
Britner, 1999; Shaver et al., 1988).
support and information, whereas the outer layers provide protection
Regarding the quality of attachment bonds studies by Ainshworth
against other groups, and the possible source to find close friends and
and Bowlby (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth, 1979) identified four styles of
mates (Hill and Dunbar, 2003).
attachment in children about 2 years of age, distinguishing securely
However, maintenance of close relationship and intimacy with an-
attached children from those who were insecurely attached (avoidant,
other person is time and energy consuming for the ego (Hill and
ambivalent, or disorganized). Adult attachment styles were elaborated
Dunbar, 2003). It requires frequent personal contact between the ego
by Hazan and Shaver (1987), as well as by Bartholomew & Horowitz
and the alter. For example, subjectively judged emotional closeness and
(1991). These latter authors measured attachment based on two di-
frequency of personal contact has a linear relationship (Roberts et al.,
mensions: anxiety and avoidance in close relationships. Secure attach-
2009). Thus, the support group represents frequent personal contact
ment in adults is characterized by low anxiety and low avoidance.
(daily or weekly) and more intense emotional connection (at least 8 on
These people (approximately 65% of the population) find it relatively
a scale of 10), whereas the sympathy group represents less frequent
easy to be intimate with or to become emotionally close to others, and
contact (monthly) and less intense emotional bonding. At the same
are comfortable to be mutually dependent on others. Insecurely at-
time, the two outer layers, – clan and tribe – represent even less fre-
tached adults are described by three categories by Bartholomew and
quent contact (yearly), and less intimacy (Hill and Dunbar, 2003).
Horowitz: anxious-preoccupied, dismissive, and fearful avoidant
Group size and strength of relationships are inversely related: ties are
(1991). People with anxious preoccupied style behave highly anxiously
the strongest in the support group, followed by the sympathy group,
about loosing a relationship, feel that others may not reciprocate their
and are the weakest in the outer layers. The ego needs to find the op-
feelings, they score high on the anxiety and low on the avoidant scale.
timal cost-benefit ratio in the number of close versus weak ties he or she
People with a dismissive style feel comfortable without being emo-
maintains (Sutcliffe et al., 2012).
tionally close to others, they score high on the avoidant, and low on
As we mentioned, various cognitive capacities and skills may also
anxiety scale. People with fearful avoidant style long for emotional
contribute to network organization, and even put a limit on the possible
closeness, but find it difficult to trust others completely or to depend on
number of intimates in the support and sympathy groups. Primary
them. They score high both on the anxiety and on the avoidant scales.
among them – as it has been argued (Shultz & Dunbar, 2010; Bickart
Fiori and colleagues (Fiori et al., 2011) investigated attachment quality
et al., 2012) – is emotional relationship between individuals, which
and ego-centered network size and found that individuals with secure
may be related to individual size variations in human amygdala.
attachment styles had a more extended network than insecurely at-
tached people. High reciprocity also characterized such secure re-
The possible role of attachment in network organization lationships.
In our study we use the social network model theory of attachment,
The attachment system has evolved to organize the most inner layer assuming that individuals may have various parallel attachment

190
E. Berán et al.
relations, relating to alters in differing attachment styles. Based on the
social network model of attachment we examined how the two inner
layers, the support group and the sympathy group differ in terms of
attachment quality, by adopting Bartholomew and Horowitz’s four ca-
tegory model to characterize attachment in various relationships.
Because the support group represents the closest emotional ties within
the network, we specifically hypothesized more secure attachment in
the support group than in the sympathy group.
We also examined other measures that might be related to the
quality of attachment between ego and alter, such as level of conflict
and stress between ego and alter, fear of abandonment, level of trust in
the relationship, assuming bad intentions in the alter as perceived by
the ego, similarity of world view with the alter, and importance of the
ego for the alter as perceived by the ego. Level of conflict and stress
between ego and alter may influence relationship quality and may be
related to attachment style as well as to network structure (Dunbar &
Machin, 2014). For example, examining conflict in relationships it was
found that frequency of angry conflict predicted dissatisfaction and
dissolution in couples (Gill et al., 1999), and that secure attachment
was related to mutual conflict resolution styles (Corcoran and
Mallinckrodt, 2000); also, that partners’ own attachment anxiety and
avoidance predicted their experience of conflict levels (Brassard et al.,
2009). Fear of abandonment has been shown to be an important un-
derlying factor in attachment style categorization, as a marker of an-
xious attachment (Collins, & Read, 1990).
Dunbar considers trust to be central to friendships (in the broad
sense), because it underpins how people interact with each other, their
willingness to offer help, and even trade (Dunbar, 2018). A study by
Mikulincer (1998) showed a link between attachment security and level
of trust in the relationship. Securely, as opposed to insecurely attached
individuals felt more trust toward partners, showed higher accessibility
of positive trust-related memories, reported more positive trust epi-
sodes, and adopted more constructive strategies in coping with viola-
tions of trust. Assuming bad intentions in the alter signals lack of trust in
the relationship.
Dunbar mentions similarity of religion, education, and social values
among factors characterizing friendships (Dunbar, 2018). We argue,
that these factors taken together as similarity of world view with alters
may be related to attachment quality as well. For example, similarity in
political opinions has been observed in married couples (Stoker &
Jennings, 2006; Zuckerman et al., 2005), whereas religious dissim-
ilarity has been linked to marital dissatisfaction (Curtis, & Ellison,
2002). Importance of the ego for the alter: the main idea in attachment
representation is that the subject is very important for the securely
attached attachment figure (Bowlby, 1980, 1988).
In relation to our hypothesis of secure attachment being more
characteristic of the support group, we hypothesized that the support
group will be characterized by less conflict, fear of abandonment, and
attribution of bad intentions to the alter, as opposed to more trust, si-
milarity of world view, and importance in comparison to the sympathy
group.
We also investigated the compositions of the support group in terms
of attachment security. We wanted to find out if there are any differ-
ences between types of alters, namely friends and kin within the support
group, as suggested by Roberts and coworkers (Roberts et al., 2009).
They showed that in case of relatives as opposed to friends, there are
many relations with intense and many with little emotional investment.
We hypothesized that within the support group family members will be
characterized by more secure attachment, in comparison to friends, due
to ‘kinship premium’ (Dunbar & Machin, 2014). Since demographic
variables such as age and gender have been shown to influence network
structure (McPherson et al., 2006; Roberts et al., 2008; Roberts et al.,
2009), we also included these variables in our analysis as moderator
variables, hypothesizing, that they may interact with attachment se-
curity in contributing to network structure.
191
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
Relational Models (RM) and ego-centered network
Another question we investigated in our study is how network or-
ganization may be related to Fiske’s (1991) RM types. RM is a cognitive
schema based on the type of social relationship between two in-
dividuals. Fiske established four types of RMs, based on the interacting
partners’ contribution to the relationship.
Communal sharing is the first kind of model, in which people treat
each other as equivalent and undifferentiated in terms of contribution
to the community. This may occur in a close community when the
members share common resources or, for instance, within a family. In
an authority ranking relational model, people have asymmetric posi-
tions in a hierarchy, in which subordinates defer, respect and obey,
while superiors take precedence and control. Equality matching is the
third kind of RM, according to which participants keep track of the
balance or difference of contribution, and know what is required to
restore the balance - for example, friends inviting and re-inviting each
other to have dinner at their homes. The fourth type of RM is market
pricing, in which relationships are oriented by socially meaningful ra-
tios or rates, such as prices, wages, interest rates, rents, or cost-benefit
analysis.
The second major aim of the study was to find out how the un-
derlying cognitive system of RMs contributes to ego-centered network
organization. Since there have been no previous studies of this kind,
this was an exploratory approach. We examined the inner network
layers in terms of ego-alter RM type by comparing the support group
with the sympathy group, as well as comparing relationship to close
family members and friends within the support group. We hypothesized
that RM towards a given alter will be related to the alter’s position in
the sympathy or support group, and that there will be more communal
sharing in the support group than in the sympathy group. We also
hypothesized that within the support group the ego’s RM patterns to-
wards a given alter would be specific to the type of relationship: family
relations (parents, caregivers, siblings, and children) will differ from
friendships in that family members will be characterized by communal
sharing, whereas friends will be characterized by equality matching.
Because of previous findings mentioned above we also included age and
gender in our analysis as moderator variables, hypothesizing, that they
may interact with RM type in contributing to network structure.
Methods
Participants
Participants of the study were 274 volunteers, 62 males (22.63%),
and 212 (77.37%) females. Participants were reached through uni-
versity students, using the snowball (expanding selection) method. This
was a convenience sample, not representative of the Hungarian popu-
lation as a whole. Mean age of participants was 29.83 years,
(SD = 11.80, range: 18-67). Participants’ education was the following:
Elementary school: 19 (6.93%), vocational school: 48 (17.52%), high
school: 130 (47.45%), university or post-gradual: 77 (28.1%).
According to population census 2011 data (KSH, 2015), among the
Hungarian population the education of the same age group was the
following: elementary school 12.51%, vocational school 19.78 %, high
school 39.25%, university or post gradual degree 28.46%. At the time
of testing 212 participants (77.37%) had an intimate relationship
partner, and 62 (22.63%) did not have one. Participants’ family status
was the following: 49 (17.88%) was married, 69 (25.18%) was living
with stable partner, but not married, 10 (3.65%) was divorced, 143
(52.19%) was living alone, and 3 (1.09%) persons were widowed. Ac-
cording to Hungarian population census 2011 (KSH, 2015) data, the
family status of the same age group was the following: 19.8 % was
married, 78.2%, was not married, 1.9% was divorced, and 0.1% was a
widow. Residence of the participants was in Budapest (capital): 165
(60.22%), other city: 82 (29.92%), small town: 27 (9.85%). According
E. Berán et al.
to Hungarian census 2011 data (KSH, 2015), residence in the total
population of Hungary was the following: Budapest (capital): 17.34%,
other city: 51.78%, small town: 30.88%.
All participants provided informed consent, and the entire study
was approved by the Ethical Committee of Human Subjects at
Semmelweis University, Budapest.
Procedures
Participants completed an online questionnaire. First, they were
asked to list all the people that they contact at least monthly and have
some sort of personal relationship with (spend free time together and/
or discuss personal matters). This “name generator” question used the
following wording in Hungarian: “Please list all the people (be it your
partner, relative, friend, colleague, schoolmate, neighbor, other ac-
quaintance) that you contact at least monthly (in person or via tele-
phone, email or other channel) and you have some sort of personal
relationship with (you spend your free time together and/or discuss
personal matters).”
Following the listing, participants were asked to add to the list all
the people to whom they feel emotionally close, regardless of whether
that tie is positive, negative or mixed and regardless of the frequency of
contact. This, second “name generator” question used the following
wording in Hungarian: “On the previous page we asked you to list all
those acquaintances that you contact at least monthly. In the next task
contact frequency does not matter: If they were missing from the pre-
vious list, please list all the people to whom you feel a close emotional
tie, regardless of whether that tie is positive, negative or mixed and
regardless of the frequency of your contact. Be sure to include the fol-
lowing people if they were not listed previously (and if they are still
alive): your partner, your mother (or step mother), your father (or step
father), your brothers and sisters, your best friends.”
Following the participant’s listing all potential alters they wanted to
include, attachment to individual alters, RM models, and further related
questions were assessed by inserting a given alter’s name in a specific
question. This way all questions were asked for all individual alters the
participant listed while answering the two name generator questions.
The completion of the total questionnaire (including some other ques-
tions not discussed in this paper) lasted about 1 to 2 hours, depending
on the total number of alters listed initially.
Measurements
For all the names that had been elicited, respondents had to eval-
uate the ego-alter ties along the following dimensions:
• Type of relationship they had with the alter (partner, parent, sibling,
son/daughter, other relative, friend, ex-partner, colleague, school-
mate, neighbor, other);
• Duration of the relationship: whether the ego had known the alter
for a) less than half a year, b) for half a year to one year, c) for 1 year
to 3 years, d) for 3 years to 10 years, or e) the relationship lasted for
more than 10 years;
• Average frequency of personal contact in the relationship: a) daily,
b) weekly, c) monthly, d) yearly, e) a few times a year, f) less fre-
quently than a year, g) never;
• Emotional closeness in the relationship (on a 0-9 scale, 0 indicating
no closeness at all, and 9 indicating a very close relationship);
• Level of conflict and emotional stress in the relationship (0-6 scale, 0
indicating no conflicts and stress at all, 6 indicating very high
conflict and stress);
• Fear of abandonment in the relationship: how much they afraid that
the alter terminates the relationship (0-6 scale, 0 indicating no fear
at all, and 6 indicating high fear of abandonment);
• Level of trust in the relationship: to what extent they feel that they
can trust the alter (0-6 scale, 0 indicating no trust at all, 6 indicating
192
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
very high level of trust);
• Assuming bad intentions in the alter: to what extent they believe
that the alter would harm them on purpose if they could benefit
from that (0-6 scale, 0 indicating not at all, 6 indicating very much);
• Similarity of world view is with the alter, 0-6 scale, 0 indicating not
at all, 6 indicating very much so;
• Importance of the ego for the alter, as perceived by the ego, 0-6
scale, 0 indicating not at all, 6 indicating very much so;
• Attachment of the ego to alters was measured using Bartholomew &
Horowitz (1991) Relationship Questionnaire, measuring attachment
styles in relationships: secure, anxious-preoccupied, fearful-avoi-
dant, and dismissive, which characterizations respondents rated on
a 7 point Likert scale – difference from the original text of the
questionnaire was that relationship characterizations were not
general, but specific to a given ego-alter tie by mentioning the alter’s
name;
• Relational Models (Fiske & Haslam, 1996; Fiske, 1991) used towards
alters – communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching,
and market pricing – were also assessed by rating each character-
ization on a 7 point Likert scale. Characterizations of RMs were
originally created by us in Hungarian language, because short
characterizations suitable for our questionnaire were not available
in the literature. Here we give the English translation for each
model. We must note that labels of RMs did not appear on the screen
for the participants, only the descriptions themselves.
Communal sharing: “In my relationship with X, we feel we belong
together. We help each other and share with each other whatever we
have. We do not keep track of how much each of us contributes to the
relationship.”
Authority ranking: “In my relationship with X one of us is typically
the initiator, decision maker, whereas the other usually follows him/
her. The decision maker receives more attention and is allowed more
freedom in the relationship, at the same time, however he/she is the
one who provides protection and caring for the other.”
At this question we also asked about the direction of the relation-
ship: “Typically who is the decision maker in the relationship?”
Answers: “It is typically me”, or “It is typically X.”
Equality matching: “In my relationship with X we are equal partners.
We help each other, but at the same time we pay attention to contribute
equally to the relationship, and we feel uneasy if the balance in our
relationship contribution becomes upset.”
Market pricing: “My relationship with X is based on mutual interest.
We expect from each other a fair compensation for our invested energy,
time, and money.”
Respondents were also asked to provide demographic information
about themselves, including age, highest educational qualification,
whether they had a partner or not and the type of location (e.g. city,
small town, etc.) they lived in. Furthermore, they had to indicate the
gender and estimated age of all of their alters.
The support group – based on Dunbar and his coworkers (Hill and
Dunbar, 2003; Roberts et al., 2008; Roberts et al., 2009) – was defined
by two variables: weekly or more frequent personal contact, and 8
point, or higher on the 10 point emotional closeness scale. We defined
the sympathy group as alters listed outside of the support group based
on the criteria included in the two name generators. However, since
based on the instructions of the second name generator participants
may have included negative emotional ties, we correlated two negative
items of our questionnaire with emotional closeness in the data: ‘level
of conflict and stress in the relationship’, and ‘assuming bad intentions
in the alter’. We used Spearman’s correlation to calculate this. Ac-
cording to our results, ‘level of conflict and stress in the relationship’
and ‘assuming bad intentions in the alter’ have a weak, negative re-
lationship with emotional closeness (rs = -0.11, p < 0.001, and rs =
-0.29, p < 0.001, respectively), thus it seems to have a very low
probability that participants interpreted emotional closeness in a way of
E. Berán et al. Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

including negative ties. Another way we have addressed the problem of
including negative ties was looking at the means of the two above
mentioned variables. The mean of the variable ‘level of conflict and
stress in the relationship’ is very low (M = 1.3, SD = 1.67), as well as
that of the variable ‘assuming bad intentions in the alter’ (M = 0.4,
SD = 1.05), whereas the variable ‘emotional closeness’ has a higher
mean (M = 5.68, SD = 2.55). This suggest that despite the possibility
for including negative ties among the alters, participants included very
few of such ties in our data set.
Data structure and statistical analysis
Our data collection captured the participants’ ego-network. Each
participant listed k alters, and for all k alters the same number of
questions were answered. These either were questions about the alter of
the participant (alter questions), or about the relationship between the
alter and the ego (ego-alter questions). Besides there were questions
reflecting the participant only (ego questions).
Thus, two databases were created: a database with n entries (ego
database), and another with n*kn entries (ego-alter) database. The two
databases were linked by ego identifiers to extend the longer database
in order to be able to include both alter and ego level variables in the
analyses.
Our data are necessarily interdependent. Our data analyses were
based on maximum likelihood approach: hierarchical linear modeling
(Lindley & Smith, 1972; Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Gibbons et al.,
1988; Jennrich & Schluchter, 1986) implemented via the Statistical
Analysis System (SAS) version 14 (the GLIMMIX Procedure). This ap-
proach accounts for correlations between observations that are struc-
tured into clusters, for example, those belonging to a particular ego. For
most of the analyses we used Generalized Linear Mixed Models
(GLIMMIX, SAS 9.2), which can handle categorical data with non-
normal distributions (e.g., Poisson and binomial); and the different
number of measurement levels per individual by taking the individuals
(i.e., the repeated assessment which involve the same individual) as
random factors. In case a significant relationship was found in the
GLIMMIX model, we computed Least-Squares means (LS-means) in
order to further characterize the direction of the associations.
For analyses that were not using alter data the database was col-
lapsed per individual, and used on a regular one line per participant
(i.e., one row of observations) basis. Besides the participant ego an-
swers, this collapsed version also comprised derived ego level data,
including the number of alters listed, or other variables aggregated
from the participant’s ego-alter or alter data.
Using GLIMMIX procedure we examined differences within the
support group between family members and friends. We created a
variable called ‘Family’ that included parents, children, siblings, and
partners. We included not only kin, but also partner, because of the
close emotional tie typical in such relationships. For the ‘Friends’
variable, we used the original questionnaire, where participants chose
the label “friend” to indicate relationship with the specific alter. In the
analysis we used a grouping variable ‘Family and friends’ based on
these two variables. We created this grouping variable in order to
compare various effects within the support group.
was 9.36 (SD = 7.75; range: 0-51). Following the first name generator,
participants responded to the second name generator, listing additional
alters, for which the mean was 2.24 (SD = 2.9; range: 0-17).
Mean age for alters was 33.76, (SD = 16.73; range: 0-94). Since the
age distribution of alters showed a Poisson distribution (with higher
ages occurring with increasingly lower frequency in the database), we
calculated relationship between total network size (i.e. total number of
alters), size of the support and sympathy groups in relation to age and
gender in a GLIMMIX analysis model. In total network size there was no
main effect for gender, F (1, 270) = 2.03, p = 0.15). We found a main
effect for age, F (1, 270) = 16.34, p < .0001, with LS means indicating
that total network size was negatively related to age of the ego: for 20
years of age, for males LSM = 15.1 (SE = 2.05); for females
LSM = 13.2 (SE = 0.8); for 55 years of age male, LSM = 5.2 (SE = 1.4);
for female LSM = 8.3 (SE = 1.2), and there was no interaction between
gender and age, F (1, 270) = 2.55, p = 0.11
In the support group, there was no main effect for gender, F (1,
270) = 0.73, p = 0.39. However, there was a main effect for age, F (1,
270) = 5.83, p = 0.016, LS means indicating that size of the support
group showed a decrease with age: for 20 years of age male LSM = 2.9
(SE = 0.5), female LSM = 3.7 (SE = 0.3); for 55 years of age male
LSM = 1.9 (SE = 0.5), female LSM = 2.1 (SE = 0.4). There was no in-
teraction between gender and age, F (1,270) = 0.11, p = 0.74.
In the sympathy group there was no main effect for gender, F (1,
270) = 3.24, p = 0.07; however, there was a main effect for age F
(1,270) = 12.75, p = 0.0004, LS means indicating that group size
decreased with age: for 20 years of age male LSM = 12.3 (SE = 2.0),
female LSM = 9.5 (SE = 0.7); for 55 years of age male LSM = 3.4
(SE = 1.15), for female LSM = 6.2 (SE = 1.1). And again there was no
interaction between gender and age, F (1, 270) = 3.25, p = 0.07.
Relationships listed were categorized by relationship duration by
the participants: 101 (3.18%) relations were listed, in which partici-
pants knew their alters for less than half a year, 219 (6.89%) relations
had lasted for half a year to one year, 594 (18.69%) for 1 year to 3
years, 892 (28.07%) for 3 years to 10 years, and 1372 (43.17%) re-
lationships listed had lasted for more than 10 years. Descriptive in-
formation on the frequencies of the various alter types in the data set is
presented in Table 1.
Alter types in support and sympathy groups
The mean size of the support group was 3.12 (SD = 2.63; range: 0
-17), and the mean size of the sympathy group in addition to the sup-
port group was 8.47 people (SD = 8.28; range: 0-52), respectively. We
used the Chi-square test to compare alter composition in the support
and sympathy groups. Since the number of alters could vary across
egos, for the analyses we applied the weighted approach, with the
Table 1
Frequencies and percentages of alter types in the total data set, and by gender.
AlterType Total Frequency (%) Female ego Frequency Male ego
(%) Frequency
(%)

Partner 150 (4.72) 121 (4.8) 29(4.41)

Results Parent/guardian 376 (11.83) 309 (12.26) 67 (10.20)
Siblings 303 (9.53) 242 (9.6) 61(9.28)
Alters data Daughter/son 81 (2.55) 60 (2.38) 21 (3.2)
Other relative 379 (11.93) 306 (12.14) 73 (11.11)
Friend 1065 (33.51) 829 (32.88) 236 (35.92)
Participants listed 3178 related alters, among them there was 1872 Ex-partner 77 (2.42) 55 (2.18) 22 (3.35)
(58.90%) female, and 1306 (41.10%) male. There was a significant Colleague 155 (4.88) 105 (4.17%) 50 (7.61)
relationship between ego-gender and alter-gender. Females listed 1577 Schoolmate 213 (6.70) 181 (7.18) 32 (4.84)
Neighbor 60 (1.89) 50 (1.98) 10 (1.52)
female alters, and 944 male alters, males listed 295 female alters, and
Other 319 (10.04) 263 (10.43) 56 (8.52)
362 male alters, (chi-squared = 67.1, p < 0.0001). The mean number χ2 test for gender 27.5826*
for alters listed by each participant was 11.60 (SD = 9.04; range: 1-55).
Responding to the first name generator the mean number of alters listed Note. * = p = 0.0021.

193
E. Berán et al. Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

Table 2
Crosstabulation for alter types in support and sympathy groups weighted by number of alters.
Freq. Partner (%) Parent/Gardian Siblings (%) Daughter /Son Other Friend Ex-partner Colleague School- Neighbor Other Total
Percent (%) (%) relative (%) (%) (%) mate (%) (%) (%)
(%) (%)

Sympathy 745 (1.60) 3009 2968 283 6460 15178 1164 2650 4792 1002 8265 46516
group (6.47) (6.83) (0.61) (13.89) (32.63) (2.50) (5.70) (10.30) (2.15) (17.77) (78.62)
Support group 943 2153 1983 656 1055 4652 97 285 339 112 371 12646
(7.46) (17.03) (15.68) (5.19) (8.34) (36.79) (0.77) (2.25) (2.68) (0.89) (2.93) (21.38)
χ2test 7725.64*

Note. * = p < 0.001

number of alters used as weights in the computation of Chi-square test- Table 4

statistics). Results are presented in Table 2, showing a significant dif- LS Means and standard errors for differences of support and sympathy groups.
ference in group composition between the support group and the Measure Group LS Means SE
sympathy group.
Secure attachment sympathy 3.53 0.01
support 5.31 0.01
Fearful-Avoidant attachment sympathy 1.40 0.02
Ego-alter attachment in relation to age in support and sympathy support 0.56 0.1
groups Preoccupied atatchment sympathy 1.20 0.03
support 0.67 0.1
Secure attachment. Using GLIMMIX procedure we found a significant Dismissive attachment sympathy 0.75 0.02
support 0.10 0.06
relationship for group type (for F-values and significance see Table 3) in
Communal sharing RM sympathy 3.22 0.01
ego-alter secure attachment, secure attachment being higher in the support 5.12 0.01
support group than in the sympathy group (for LS-means see Table 4). Authority ranking RM sympathy 1.64 0.02
There was a main effect for age (Table 3, Fig. 2.a), with no interaction support 2.05 0.03
Equality matching RM sympathy 3.30 0.01
(Table 3).
support 4.55 0.01
Fearful-Avoidant attachment. There was a significant main effect of Market pricing RM sympathy 1.55 0.03
group type on fearful-avoidant attachment (Table 3), LS means showing support 1.49 0.05
that it was lower in the support group than in the sympathy group
(Table 4), with no main effect for age (Table 3, Fig. 2.b), or interaction Note. SE = Standard error; DF for all variables in the table = 228.
(Table 3).
Anxious-preoccupied attachment. There was a significant group type Ego-alter relations in relation to age of Fiske’s RMs in the support
effect on anxious-preoccupied attachment (Table 3), LS means showing and sympathy groups
that it was lower in the support group (Table 4). There was also a
significant main effect for age on preoccupied attachment (Table 3), LS Communal sharing. Using the GLIMMIX procedure we found a sig-
means indicating that with increasing age the level of preoccupied at- nificant association between group type on communal sharing RM
tachment is higher in both groups (Fig. 2.c). There was no interaction (Table 5), with LS means indicating that communal sharing is more
between age and group type (Table 3). prevalent in the support group than in the sympathy group (Table 4).
Dismissive attachment. In case of dismissive attachment between ego There was no main effect for age (Table 5, Fig. 3a), or interaction
and alter, there was a significant main effect of group type (Table 3), LS (Table 5).
means indicating that dismissive attachment was lower in the support Authority ranking. There was no main effect for group type on au-
group (Table 4). There was also a main effect for age (Table 3), LS thority ranking RM (Table 5). There was a main effect for age, however
means indicating that with increasing age there was an increase in (Table 5), LS means indicating that with increasing age authority
dismissive attachment in both groups (Fig. 2.d), with no interaction ranking was higher in both groups (Fig. 3.b). There was no interaction
between group type and age Table 3). effect between age and group type (Table 5).
Equality matching. For equality matching there was a significant
main effect for group type (Table 5), LS means indicating that equality
Table 3 matching was more frequent in the support group (Table 4). There was
Ego-alter attachment in relation to age in support and sympathy groups. no main effect for age (Table 5, Fig. 3.c), and no interaction (Table 5).
Attachment type F df p Market pricing. For market pricing RM, there was no main effect for
group type (Table 5), but there was a main effect for age (Table 5), LS
Secure
means indicating that with increasing age, market pricing increased in
(A) Group type 85.97 1.228 < .0001
(B) Age 5.32 1.272 .0219 both groups (Fig. 3.d). There was no interaction between group type
A x B (Interaction) 0.77 1.290 .77 and age (Table 5).
Fearful-Avoidant
(C) Group type 16.84 1.228 < .0001
(D) Age 2.50 1.272 .11 Comparison of alter types within the support group – attachment
C x D (Interaction) 0.70 1.290 .40
and Fisk’s RMs in relation to gender
Anxious preoccupied
(E) Group type 9.45 1.228 .0024
(F) Age 8.50 1.272 .0038 We used a GLIMMIX procedure to compare alter types of Family and
E x F (Interaction) 0.28 1.290 .59 Friends variables within the support group. First, we examined at-
Dismissive tachment in relation to gender.
(G) Group type 15.20 1.228 .0001
Secure attachment. In secure attachment there was a main effect for
(H) Age 85.97 1.272 < .0001
G x H (Interaction) 5.32 1.290 .0219 friend or family relationships (for F-values and significance see
Table 6), with LS means indicating that secure attachment was more

194
E. Berán et al.
Fig. 2. a,b,c,d Attachment types according to group and age.
frequent in family relationships: LSM for Family = 5.5 (SE = 0.1), LSM
for Friends = 5.2 (SE = 0.1). There was no main effect for gender
(Table 6); however, there was an interaction between group type (fa-
mily vs. friends) and gender (Table 6), LS means indicating that women
were more securely attached with family members than friends:
LSM = 5.5 (SE = 0.1), and LSM = 5.2 (SE = 0.1), respectively. For men
the opposite was the case: LSM = 5.2 (SE = 0.1), LSM = 5.5 (SE = 0.2)
for family members and friends respectively.
Fearful-Avoidant attachment. In fearful-avoidant attachment, there
was no main effect for the Family and friends variable (Table 6). There
was a main effect for gender (Table 6), LS means indicating that men
had higher avoidance than women in both groups. In the family group
LSM = 0.8 (SE = 0.1), LSM = 0.5 (SE = 0.1) for men and women re-
spectively; in the friend group LSM = 0.8 (SE = 0.2), LSM = 0.5
(SE = 0.1) for men and women respectively. There was no interaction
between group belonging and gender (Table 6).
Anxious-preoccupied attachment. For anxious-preoccupied attach-
ment, there was no main effect for the ‘Family or friend’ variable
195
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
(Table 6), there was no main effect for gender (Table 6), and there was
no interaction (Table 6).
Dismissive attachment. For dismissive attachment there was no main
effect for the ‘Family or friend’ variable (Table 6). However, there was a
main effect for gender (Table 6), LS means indicating that men had a
higher level of dismissive attachment within both family and friend
groups than women. In the family group LSM for men = 1.4 (SE = 0.2),
LSM for women = 1.0 (SE = 0.1); for the friend group LSM for
men = 1.4, (SE = 0.3), LSM for women = 1.1, (SE = 0.1). There was
no interaction between group type and gender (Table 6).
Using the same GLIMMIX procedure we examined differences in
RMs within the support group between family members and friends.
Communal sharing. For communal sharing there was a significant
main effect for group type (for F-values and significance see Table 7), LS
means indicating, that communal sharing was higher in the family than
in the friend group, LSM = 5.3 (SE = 0.1), LSM = 5.0 (SE = 0.1) re-
spectively. There was no main effect for gender (Table 7), or interaction
(Table 7).
E. Berán et al. Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

Table 5 Level of trust in the relationship. There was a significant main effect
Ego-alter relations in relation to age of Fiske’s RMs in the support and sympathy for group type, F (1, 228) = 33.87, p < 0.0001, LS means indicating
groups. that trust in alters was higher in the support group than in the sympathy
Relational Model type F df p group. LSM for support group = 5.3 (SE = 0.1), LSM for sympathy
group = 4.2 (SE = 0.0). There was a significant main effect for age, F
Communal sharing (1, 272) = 4.45, p = 0.0358, LS means indicating that with an increase
(A) Group type 96.98 1.228 .0001
of age (Fig. 4.c) trust decreased in both groups. There was no interac-
(B) Age 0.01 1.272 .90
A x B (Interaction) 0.23 1.290 .63 tion between age and group type F (1, 2902) = 0.25, p = 0.61.
Authority Ranking Assuming bad intentions in the alter. There was no main effect for
(C) Group type 0.42 1.228 .51 group type F (1, 228) = 0.47, p = 0.49. There was no main effect for
(D) Age 147.30 1.272 < .0001 age, F (1, 272) = 0.66, p = 0.41 (Fig. 4.d), and there was no interac-
C x D (Interaction) 3.82 1.290 .05
Equality Matching
tion, F (1, 2902) = 1.15, p = 0.28.
(E) Group type 64.49 1.228 < .0001 Similarity of world view. There was a main effect for group type F
(F) Age 2.46 1.272 .11 (1,228) = 36.71, p < 0.0001. LS means indicating that similarity of
E x F (Interaction) 2.67 1.290 .10 world view was higher in the support group than in the sympathy
Market Pricing
group. LSM for support group = 4.3 (SE = 0.1), LSM for sympathy
(G) Group type 2.65 1.228 .10
(H) Age 109.31 1.272 < .0001 group = 3.3, (SE = 0.0). There was no main effect for age, F (1,
G x H (Interaction) 3.12 1.290 .07 272) = 0.76, p = 38.43 (Fig. 5.a), and there was no interaction be-
tween group type and age, F (1, 2902) = 0.01, p = 0.93.
How important the ego is for the alter – as perceived by the ego. There
was a main effect for group type F (1, 228) = 82.71, p < 0.0001. LS
Authority ranking. For authority ranking there was a main effect for means indicating that participants assume that they are more important
the family or friend variable (Table 7), LS means indicating that au- for the alter, in case the alter belongs to the support group rather than
thority ranking was higher in the family group than in the friend group. the sympathy group. LSM for support group = 5.3 (SE = 0.1), LSM for
For family LSM = 2.4 (SE = 0.1), for friends LSM = 1.7, (SE = 0.1). sympathy group = 3.5, (SE = 0.0). There was no main effect for age, F
There was a main effect for gender (Table 7), LS means indicating that (1, 272) = 1.26, p = 0.26 (Fig. 5.b), and no interaction, F (1,
authority ranking was higher for men than for women in both groups. 2902) = 2.04, p = 0.15.
For family, LSM for men = 2.7 (SE = 0.2), LSM for women = 2.3
(SE = 0.1); for friends, LSM for men = 2.5 (SE = 0.3), LSM for Discussion
women = 1.6 (SE = 0.1). There was no interaction between group type
and gender (Table 7). In the study we investigated the structure and characteristics of the
Equality matching. For equality matching there was a main effect for ego-centered social network. We described the two inner layers of the
the “Family and friends” variable (Table 7), LS means indicating that Dunbarian model, namely the support and sympathy groups, in terms of
there was more equality matching with friends than with family. LSM cognitive models potentially contributing to network structure, and
for family = 4.5, (SE = 0.1), LSM for friends = 4.7 (SE = 0.09). There relationship characteristics within the network: attachment quality and
was also a main effect for gender (Table 7), LS means indicating that RMs – thereby filling a gap in the ego-centered network literature. In
women had a higher score for equality matching than men in both the general, our results show a differentiation of the two inner layers in
family, and the friends group. For family LSM for women = 4.5 terms of the above mentioned characteristics.
(SE = 0.1), LSM for men = 4.2 (SE = 0.2); for friends LSM for As our results indicate, we replicated previous findings as far as the
women = 4.8 (SE = 0.1), LSM for men = 4.3 (SE = 0.25). There was average size of support and sympathy groups (Dunbar & Spoors, 1995).
no interaction for group type and gender (Table 7). We also found a homophile effect by gender in that female ego’s net-
Market pricing. In market pricing none of the effects were significant. work were dominated by females, male ego networks were dominated
Thus, there was no main effect for group type (Table 7), no main effect by males, as shown in previous studies (McPherson et al., 2006; Roberts
for gender (Table 7), and no interaction between group type and gender et al., 2008). In addition, total network size, and within this, both the
(Table 7). support and sympathy groups showed a decrease with age, as shown
previously (Fung et al., 2001; Marsden, 1987), although McPherson and
colleagues found no such association (McPherson et al., 2006).
Further characteristics of relationship quality Among the alter types participants indicated, one third of the total
relations listed were ‘friends’. Composition of support and sympathy
Additionally, we used the GLIMMIX procedure and compared fur- groups were found to differ also in terms of proportion of alter types.
ther characteristics of the relationships quality within the support and Friends as alters dominated both the support and sympathy groups in
sympathy groups in relation to age. Detailed results are presented in the about equal proportion, which finding is in accordance with previous
section below. results (Hill and Dunbar, 2003). Partners, parents, children and siblings
Level of conflict in the relationship. There was no main effect for group were more likely to belong to the support group, whereas ex-partners,
type, F (1, 228) = 0.26, p = 0.61, no main effect for age, F (1, colleagues, school-mates, neighbors and others were more likely to
272) = 1.23, p = 0.26 (Fig. 4.a), and no interaction F (1, belong to the sympathy group.
2902) = 0.00, p = 0.95. In accordance with our hypothesis the support and sympathy groups
Fear of abandonment. There was no main effect for group type, F (1, differ in terms of security of attachment and the type of RM. The sup-
228) = 1. 25, p = 0.26. There was a main effect for age F (1, port group is characterized by secure attachment, communal sharing
272) = 4.88, p = 0.028, LS means indicating that with an increase of and equality matching RMs. In comparison to the support group, the
age fear of abandonment increased in both groups (Fig. 4.b). There was sympathy group is characterized by more insecure attachment (more
no interaction between group type and age, F (1, 2902) = 0.29, p = avoidant, anxious preoccupied, and dismissive attachment), and less
0.59. communal sharing and equality matching RMs. In terms of attachment,

196
E. Berán et al.
Fig. 3. a, b,c,d Relational model types according to group and age.
secure attachment quality in the relationship is characterized by emo-
tional closeness and ease with co-dependence (Bartholomew &
Horowitz, 1991). Communal sharing is characterized by a sense of
belonging together, helping each-other without consideration to the
amount of contribution by the parties, whereas in equality matching,
contribution to the relationship is continuously monitored and ba-
lanced by participants (Fiske, 1991). Our results that these relationship
characteristics are more typical in the support group are in accordance
with Dunbar’s emphasis that the function of the inner layers of the
social network is to provide emotional support and unstinting help for
the individual (Hill and Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar, 2018). Even within this,
197
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
as our results show, the support group has a unique role, which can be
distinguished from that of the sympathy group. Dunbar (2017) also
claims that due to the unstinting altruism characterizing close friend-
ships score-keeping is not emphasized in the inner layers. Our results
contradict this somewhat, showing that score-keeping is important even
in the support group, which is, as we also showed, distinctly char-
acterized by increased levels of trust, importance of the ego for the
alter, and similarity of world view as compared to the sympathy group.
This latter finding also underlines the importance of similarity of var-
ious personal and social qualities in the inner layers of the network, in
accordance with Curry and Dunbar’s (2013) findings.
E. Berán et al. Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201

Table 6 quality and RMs. We argued that it would be reasonable to differentiate

Comparison of alter types – friends and family – within the support group in the sub-groups of family and friends within the support group, which
relation to gender: attachment. categories may show a difference in terms of the cognitive models
Attachment type F df p under investigation. As we mentioned above, in our ‘Family’ variable
we included partners, which may have had an influence on RM types
characterizing this group. In accordance with our hypotheses we found
Secure
that within the inner layer we could further differentiate family mem-
(A) Group type 17.10 1.105 < .0001
(B) Gender 0.03 1.232 .8618 bers from friends. Family members were characterized by more secure
A x B (Interaction) 7.59 1.487 .0061 attachment, communal sharing and authority ranking. In contrast,
Fearful-Avoidant friends were characterized by less secure attachment and more equality
(C) Group type 0.21 1.105 .64
matching RMs. These results support the idea of ‘kinship premium’
(D) Gender 7.07 1.232 .0084
C x D (Interaction) 0.31 1.487 .57
(Madsen et al., 2007, Dunbar and Machin, 2014), according to which
Anxious-preoccupied kinship involves higher levels of altruism than friendship. Thus, we are
(E) Group type 2.64 1.105 .10 more willing to mutually depend on kin (secure attachment, authority
(F) Gender 0.88 1.232 .34 ranking), and share resources (communal sharing), whereas in case of
E x F (Interaction) 0.07 1.487 .79
friendships we are more prone to keep scores (equality matching). At
Dismissive
(G) Group type 0.33 1.105 .56 the same time it is possible, that in our closest friendships we try to
(H) Gender 7.10 1.232 .0082 equalize contribution to the relationships in order to be fair with others.
G x H (Interaction) 0.11 1.487 .73 Since family within the support group is characterized by authority
ranking, as well as communal sharing, we suggest that with kin we do
not need equality matching in order to be fair, because contribution to
Table 7 the relationship is either not measured or based on rank order rather
Comparison of alter types – friends and family – within the support group in
than equalizing. Furthermore, we must note that this finding may de-
relation to gender: Relational Models.
pend on cultural value systems. In more traditional, and closed societies
Relational Model type F df p – and such is Hungarian society (Keller, 2010) – authority ranking
might be a characteristic of the family group, whereas this may not be
Communal sharing
(A) Group type 12.59 1.105 .0006 the case in more opened and modernized societies.
(B) Gender 0.89 1.232 .35 We found that in some instances the demographic variable gender
A x B (Interaction) 1.41 1.487 .32 further modified the above picture. For example, women were more
Authority Ranking securely attached to family members than to friends, whereas for men,
(C) Group type 14.54 1.105 .0002
(D) Gender 12.02 1.232 .0006
this was the opposite. These findings reflect Machin and Dunbar’s
C x D (Interaction) 2.38 1.487 .12 (2013) results, who found that males were closer and more intimate
Equality Matching with their best friends than with their romantic partners. Males were
(E) Group type 4.66 1.105 .0332 also more fearful-avoidant and dismissive in relationships than females,
(F) Gender 7.25 1.232 .0076
with both family members and friends. These results are in accordance
E x F (Interaction) 0.13 1.487 .71
Market Pricing with previous findings on gender differences in attachment
(G) Group type 0.30 1.105 .58 (Bartholomew & Horowitz, 1991; Duggan & Brennan, 1994). Authority
(H) Gender 0.75 1.232 .38 ranking was higher for men’s relations than for women’s, whereas
G x H (Interaction) 0.00 1.487 .95 equality matching in relationships was higher for women, and lower for
men. These effects did not interact with belonging to the family or
friend group. These findings show that men’s network is more hier-
We also hypothesized that demographic variables, such as age,
archical even in the support group than women’s, who are more
could possibly modify the above picture. For example, we found that
equalizers in their relationships. This can be related to gender differ-
preoccupied anxious attachment, dismissive attachment, authority
ences in interaction styles and strategies already evident from child-
ranking, and market pricing RMs showed an increase with age.
hood. For example, it has been found that by middle-school age, boys
However, these effects did not interact with belonging to the support or
interact more in large, hierarchical groups than girls (Daniels-Beirness,
sympathy group. Keeping in mind that the age range of the participants
1989; Fabes et al., 2003; Ladd, 1983), at the same time, girls have
was 18-67 years (M = 29.83, SD = 11.80), our age related results
longer lasting dyadic interactions (Benenson et al., 1997). Girls also
concern the period of late adolescence to the beginning of old age. So
spend more time than boys in social conversation and self-disclosure in
far, there has been contradictory results as to how the quality of at-
friendships (Ladd, 1983; Moller et al., 1992; Rose, 2002). Such differ-
tachment changes with increases in age. For example, some studies
ences in interaction styles and strategies had been linked to gender
found decreases in attachment anxiety, but not in attachment avoidance
differences in reaction to stress and copying behaviors (Rose, &
(Klohnen & John, 1998; Diehl et al., 1998; Van Assche et al., 2013),
Rudolph, 2006), and from an evolutionary perspective it might be re-
whereas other studies found that avoidance increases with age
lated to the fact that women are more prone to stresses that arise from
(Birnbaum, 2007; Chopik et al., 2013; Mickelson et al., 1997). In case of
living in a large social group, and therefore need a more buffering social
RMs, the increase of authority ranking and market pricing with age can
network environment to protect them (Dunbar & Machin, 2014;
be explained by the reasoning that with increasing age the individual is
Dunbar, 2018). Equal contribution to relationships by parties may be a
allotted more authority roles including formal relationships (work-
strategy that supports this purpose; however, more research is needed
place) and family (grandchildren, in-laws), as well as more formal re-
to answer this question.
lationships may become part of the individual’s network such as col-
In summary, our findings give support to the idea that network
leagues and business partners. These questions need further
structure is differentiated based on the underlying cognitive-emotional
investigation.
constructs of attachment quality and RMs. Thus, our results suggest that
We also examined the support group itself in terms of attachment
ties within these two layers of the network qualitatively differ from

198
E. Berán et al.
Fig. 4. a, b,c,d Conflict in relationship, fear of abondonment, assuming bad intentions to alter, and trust in relationship according to group type and age.
each other in terms of the cognitive models people employ in relating to
others – in addition to the differences in emotional closeness and
meeting frequency (Hill & Dunbar, 2003; Dunbar, 2018). More speci-
fically, we found that the support group is characterized by secure at-
tachment, communal sharing and equality matching RMs – whereas the
sympathy group is characterized by more insecure attachment, and less
communal sharing and equality matching RMs. Since secure attach-
ment, communal sharing as well as equality matching require a great
amount of trust on the part of the ego in the alter’s future behavior, the
above mentioned differences may be related to the differentiated dis-
tribution of trust among relationship ties within the two layers, which
we found to be higher in the support group.
At the same time, since the examined layers are also differentiated
in terms of alter types, it is possible that we relate differently to
199
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
different alter types, as this was evidenced in our examination of
members within the support group: kin and friends. These questions
need further investigation.
Limitations of the interpretation of our data stem from our sampling
method (i.e., convenience sampling). This may reduce the general-
izability of the results.
Another issue is the discrete hierarchical organization of the support
and sympathy groups (Zhou et al., 2005) shown by using fractal ana-
lytic methods. We are in full agreement that the claims of this paper
should be replicated. We have tried to validate this finding by using
hierarchical cluster analysis, which the size of our data set did not allow
us to perform. The discrete hierarchical organization of groups sur-
rounding the ego, however, should be examined in the future on larger
data sets using numeric taxometric methods.
E. Berán et al.
Fig. 5. a, b Similarity of world view and importance of the ego to alter according to group and age.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by TÁMOP-4.2.2.C-11/1/KONV-2012-
0008.
References
Ainsworth, M.S., 1979. Infant-mother attachment. American psychologist 34, 932–937.
Antonucci, T., Akiyama, H., Takahashi, K., 2004. Attachment and close relationships
across the life span. Attachment & Human Development 6 (4), 353–370.
Bartholomew, K., Horowitz, L.M., 1991. Attachment styles among young adults: a test of a
four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61, 226.
Benenson, J.F., Apostoleris, N.H., Parnass, J., 1997. Age and sex differences in dyadic and
group interaction. Developmental Psychology 33 (3), 538–543.
Bickart, K.C., Hollenbeck, M.C., Barrett, L.F., Dickerson, B.C., 2012. Intrinsic amygdala
and cortical functional connectivity predicts social network size in humans. The
Journal of Neuroscience 32, 14729–14741.
Birnbaum, G.E., 2007. Attachment orientations, sexual functioning, and relationship sa-
tisfaction in a community sample of women. Journal of Social and Personal
Relationships 24 (1), 21–35.
Bowlby, J., 1958. The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. The International Journal of
Psychoanalysis 39, 350–373.
Bowlby, J., 1969. Attachment and loss, volume 1: Attachment. Basic Books, New York.
Bowlby, J., 1980. Attachment and loss: Loss, sadness and depression (Vol. 3). Basic Books,
New York.
Bowlby, J., 1988. Attachment, communication, and the therapeutic process. In: Bowlby,
J. (Ed.), A secure base: Clinical applications of attachment theory. Routfedge,
London, pp. 137–157.
Brassard, A., Lussier, Y., Shaver, P.R., 2009. Attachment, perceived conflict, and couple
satisfaction: Test of a mediational dyadic model. Family Relations 58 (5), 634–646.
Bryk, A.S., Raudenbush, S.W., 1992. Hierarchical linear models: applications and data
analysis methods. Sage Publications, Inc.
Chopik, W.J., Edelstein, R.S., Fraley, R.C., 2013. From the cradle to the grave: Age dif-
ferences in attachment from early adulthood to old age. Journal of Personality 81 (2),
171–183.
Collins, N.L., Read, S.J., 1990. Adult attachment, working models, and relationship
quality in dating couples. Journal of personality and Social Psychology 58, 644–663.
Corcoran, K.O.C., Mallinckrodt, B., 2000. Adult attachment, self-efficacy, perspective
taking, and conflict resolution. Journal of Counseling & Development 78 (4),
473–483.
Curry, O., Dunbar, R.I., 2013. Do birds of a feather flock together? Human Nature 24 (3),
336–347.
Daniels-Beirness, T., 1989. Measuring peer status in boys and girls: a problem of apples
and oranges? In: Schneider, W.B.H., Attili, G., Nadel, J., Weissberg, R.P. (Eds.), Social
competence in developmental perspective. Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, pp.
107–120.
Diehl, M., Elnick, A.B., Bourbeau, L.S., Labouvie-Vief, G., 1998. Adult attachment styles:
Their relations to family context and personality. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74 (6), 1656.
Duggan, E.S., Brennan, K.A., 1994. Social avoidance and its relation to Bartholomew’s
200
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
adult attachment typology. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 11 (1),
147–153.
Dunbar, R.I., 1993. Coevolution of neocortical size, group size and language in humans.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences 16 (4), 681–694.
Dunbar, R.I., 1998. The social brain hypothesis. Brain 9, 178–190.
Dunbar, R.I., 2003. The social brain: mind, language, and society in evolutionary per-
spective. Annual Review of Anthropology 32 (1), 163–181.
Dunbar, R.I.M., 2018. The Anatomy of Friendship. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22 (1),
32–51.
Dunbar, R., Dunbar, R.I.M., 1998. Grooming, gossip, and the evolution of language.
Harvard University Press.
Dunbar, R., Machin, A., 2014. Sex differences in relationship conflict and reconciliation.
Journal of Evolutionary Psychology 12 (2-4), 109–133.
Dunbar, R.I., Shultz, S., 2007. Evolution in the social brain. Science 317 (5843),
1344–1347.
Dunbar, R.I., Shultz, S., 2010. Bondedness and sociality. Behaviour 147, 775–803.
Dunbar, R.I., Spoors, M., 1995. Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human
Nature 6, 273–290.
Fabes, R.A., Martin, C.L., Hanish, L.D., 2003. Young children’s play qualities in same-,
other-, and mixed-sex peer groups. Child Development 74 (3), 921–932.
Fiori, K.L., Consedine, N.S., Merz, E.M., 2011. Attachment, social network size, and
patterns of social exchange in later life. Research on Aging, 0164027511401038.
Fiske, A.P., Haslam, N., 1996. Social cognition is thinking about relationships. Current
Directions in Psychological Science 143–148.
Fiske, A.P., 1991. Structures of social life: The four elementary forms of human relations:
Communal sharing, authority ranking, equality matching, market pricing. Free Press.
Fung, H.H., Carstensen, L.L., Lang, F.R., 2001. Age-related patterns in social networks
among European Americans and African Americans: Implications for socioemotional
selectivity across the life span. International Journal of Aging and Human
Development 52, 185–206.
Gibbons, R.D., Hedeker, D., Waternaux, C., Davis, J.M., 1988. Random regression models:
A comprehensive approach to the analysis of longitudinal psychiatric data.
Psychopharmacology Bulletin 24 (3), 438–443.
Gill, D.S., Christensen, A., Fincham, F.D., 1999. Predicting marital satisfaction from be-
havior: Do all roads really lead to Rome? Personal Relationships 6 (3), 369–387.
Grossmann, K.E., Grossmann, K., 1991. Attachment quality as an organizer of emotional
and behavioral responses in a longitudinal perspective. In: Main, M., Marris, P.,
Stevenson-Hinde, J., Parkes, C. (Eds.), Attachment across the life cycle. Routledge,
London, pp. 93–114.
Grossmann, K.E., Grossmann, K., Huber, F., Wartner, U., 1981. German children’s be-
havior towards their mothers at 12 months and their fathers at 18 months in
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation. International Journal of Behavioral Development 4
(2), 157–181.
Hazan, C., Shaver, P., 1987. Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52 (3), 511–524.
Hill, R.A., Dunbar, R.I., 2003. Social network size in humans. Human nature 14, 53–72.
Jennrich, R.I., Schluchter, M.D., 1986. Unbalanced repeated-measures models with
structured covariance matrices. Biometrics 42 (4), 805–820.
Keller, T., 2010. Hungary on the world values map1. Review of Sociology 20, 27–50.
Klohnen, E.C., John, O.P., 1998. Working models of attachment: A theory-based proto-
type approach. In: Simpson, J.A., Rholes, W.S. (Eds.), Attachment theory and close
relationships. Guilford Press, New York, pp. 115–140.
E. Berán et al.
KSH, 2015. Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Population Census 2011.
Ladd, G.W., 1983. Social networks of popular, average, and rejected children in school
settings. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly 29, 283–307.
La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., Deci, E.L., 2000. Within-person variation
in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on attachment,
need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79,
367–384.
Lewis, M., 2005. The child and its family: The social network model. Human Development
48 (1-2), 8–27.
Lindley, D.V., Smith, A.F.M., 1972. Bayes Estimates for the Linear Model. Journal of the
Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological) 34, 1–41.
Machin, A.J., Dunbar, R.I., 2011. The brain opioid theory of social attachment: a review
of the evidence. Behaviour 148 (9-10), 985–1025.
Machin, A., Dunbar, R., 2013. Sex and Gender as Factors in in Romantic Partnerships and
Best Friendships. Journal of Relationships Research 4. https://doi.org/10.1017/jrr.
2013.8.
Madsen, E.A., Tunney, R.J., Fieldman, G., Plotkin, H.C., Dunbar, R.I., Richardson, J.M.,
McFarland, D., 2007. Kinship and altruism: A cross-cultural experimental study.
British Journal of Psychology 98 (2), 339–359.
Main, M., Weston, D.R., 1981. The quality of the toddler’s relationship to mother and to
father: Related to conflict behavior and the readiness to establish new relationships.
Child Development 52 (3), 932–940.
Marsden, P.V., 1987. Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological
Review 52 (1), 122–131.
Marvin, R.S., & Britner, P.A. 1999 Normative development: The ontogeny of attachment
J. Cassidy, P.R. Shaver Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical ap-
plications 44-67 New York: Guilford Press.
Marvin, R.S., VanDevender, T.L., Iwanaga, M.I., LeVine, S., LeVine, R.A., 1977. Infant-
caregiver attachment among the Hausa of Nigeria. In: McGurk, H. (Ed.), Ecological
factors in human development. North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 247–260.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., Brashears, M.E., 2006. Social isolation in America:
Changes in core discussion networks over two decades. American Sociological
Review 71, 353–375.
Mickelson, K.D., Kessler, R.C., Shaver, P.R., 1997. Adult attachment in a nationally re-
presentative sample. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 73 (5),
1092–1106.
Mikulincer, M., 1998. Attachment working models and the sense of trust: An exploration
of interaction goals and affect regulation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology 74 (5), 1209–1224.
Moller, L.C., Hymel, S., Rubin, K.H., 1992. Sex typing in play and popularity in middle
childhood. Sex Roles 26 (7-8), 331–353.
Nummenmaa, L., Manninen, S., Tuominen, L., Hirvonen, J., Kalliokoski, K.K., Nuutila, P.,
201
Social Networks 55 (2018) 189–201
... Sams, M., 2015. Adult attachment style is associated with cerebral μ-opioid re-
ceptor availability in humans. Human Brain Mapping 36 (9), 3621–3628.
Roberts, S.G., Dunbar, R.I., Pollet, T.V., Kuppens, T., 2009. Exploring variation in active
network size: Constraints and ego characteristics. Social Networks 31, 138–146.
Roberts, S.G., Wilson, R., Fedurek, P., Dunbar, R.I.M., 2008. Individual differences and
personal social network size and structure. Personality and Individual Differences 44,
954–964.
Rose, A.J., 2002. Co–rumination in the friendships of girls and boys. Child Development
73 (6), 1830–1843.
Rose, A.J., Rudolph, K.D., 2006. A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes:
potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys.
Psychological Bulletin 132 (1), 98–131.
Shaver, P.R., Hazan, C., Bradshaw, D., 1988. The integration of three behavioral systems.
In: Sternberg, R.J., Barns, M. L. (Eds.), The psychology of love. Yale University Press,
New Ha-ven, CT, pp. 68–99.
Shultz, S., Dunbar, R., 2010. Encephalization is not a universal macroevolutionary phe-
nomenon in mammals but is associated with sociality. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences 107, 21582–21586.
Simpson, J.A., Belsky, J., 2008. Attachment theory within a modern evolutionary fra-
mework. In: Cassidy, J., Shaver, P.R. (Eds.), Handbook of attachment: Theory, re-
search, and clinical applications, 2nd ed. Guilford Press, New York, NY, US, pp.
131–157.
Stiller, J., Dunbar, R.I., 2007. Perspective-taking and memory capacity predict social
network size. Social Networks 29 (1), 93–104.
Stoker, L., Jennings, M.K., 2006. Aging, Generations, and the Development of Partisan
Polarization in the United States. Working Papers, U.C. Berkeley.
Sutcliffe, A., Dunbar, R., Binder, J., Arrow, H., 2012. Relationships and the social brain:
Integrating psychological and evolutionary perspectives. British Journal of
Psychology 103, 149–168.
Trinke, S.J., Bartholomew, K., 1997. Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young
adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 14 (5), 603–625.
Van Assche, L., Luyten, P., Bruffaerts, R., Persoons, P., van de Ven, L., Vandenbulcke, M.,
2013. Attachment in old age: Theoretical assumptions, empirical findings and im-
plications for clinical practice. Clinical Psychology Review 33 (1), 67–81.
Zhou, W.X., Sornette, D., Hill, R.A., Dunbar, R.I., 2005. Discrete hierarchical organization
of social group sizes. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London B: Biological
Sciences 272 (1561), 439–444.
Zuckerman, A.S., Fitzgerald, J., Dasovic, J., 2005. Do couples support the same political
parties? Sometimes. In: Zuckerman, A.S. (Ed.), The social logic of politics: Personal
networks as contexts for political behavior. Temple University Press, Philadelphia,
pp. 75–94.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 “Yes.”
“Wall, that’s strange.”
“Do you know him?” asked Frank eagerly.
“Wall, I should say so!”
“Where is he now?” asked the young inventor excitedly.
“Wall, that’s not so easy to say,” replied the trapper, with a drawl. “I
’low he was at Lone Trail when I wuz down thar this winter.”
“Can you swear to that?”
Beaver Bill looked surprised.
“In course I kin.”
“Then you are just the man I want. If you will go to Silver City and
swear to that you will save Benjamin Astley from the scaffold.”
But the trapper said coolly:
“Hold on a bit, straunger. Thar’s a better way. They mought not
take my word. Ye want to find Bert Mason an’ perduce him in court.”
Frank saw that this was true.
“You’re right!” he cried, earnestly; “but tell me where you think
Mason is?”
The trapper indulged in a big chew of plug tobacco.
“Wall,” he said, slowly. “I ’low that he’s somewhere hereabouts.”
Frank gave a gasping cry.
“You don’t mean it?” he cried.
“Yas, I do, straunger,” replied the trapper. “I heern it said that at
Lone Tree that him an’ a dozen others had come up inter ther Great
Basin prospecting for gold.”
 “Ah, and that is why you believe that he is near here?”
“Sartin!”
“But you don’t know the exact locality where he is?”
The trapper was thoughtful.
“Wall,” he muttered after a time. “I reckon you’ve heard of Satan’s
Hole?”
“No,” replied Frank.
“Sho! Wall there is where he an’ his party likely is.”
“What sort of a place is it?”
Beaver Bill shrugged his shoulders.
“I don’t imagine him nor his pals are in ther hole,” he said, “for no
man kin live thar any great length of time. But it was said that thar
was a big gold mine jest at ther entrance to Satan’s Hole.”
This account was extremely interesting to Frank.
“Go on!” he said.
“Wall, Satan’s Hole is a terrible place. It’s a deep valley two miles
long and hemmed all in by high walls of rock.”
“In ther centre of that valley thar’s nuggets mixed with the sand,
pure gold, and lots go into the valley but never come out. Ther gold
tempts ’em.”
“What is the trouble?” asked Frank. “Why cannot a man live in the
valley?”
“Ugh!” grunted the trapper, “thar’s a powerful reason why. Satan’s
Hole is as hot as Hades, an’ thar’s powerful gases come up out of
the ground an’ overcomes one. Thar’s a trail across that valley
strewn with corpses, an’ it is called the Sandy Trail of Death.”
“You mean skeletons?” corrected Frank, “not bodies.”
 “I axe your parding boss, but it are bodies, not skelingtons. Thar’s
something about the atmosphere ov the gases, that preserves ther
human body, an’ there are bodies of men who went inter ther place
twenty years ago, as natural as life.”
Frank was astonished at this marvelous tale, the like of which he
had never heard before.
“Wonderful,” he exclaimed. “Why is it that the scientific world has
not heard of this strange valley?”
The trapper smiled.
“Thar’s a powerful good reason,” he declared. “Ten years ago a
party of them chaps cum out hyar. They knew it all, an’ they wouldn’t
heed anybody’s warning. They went inter the valley an’ half way
across the gas caught ’em.”
“Horrible!”
“An’ thar they air to-day.”
Frank experienced a chill.
“That is a horrible thing,” he declared. “I suppose unsuspecting
travelers are apt to walk right into the place?”
“Certain. I know of at least three men who hev crossed ther valley
safely.”
“How did they do it?”
“Oh, thar’s days when ther gases don’t come up, I suppose.”
Frank was thoughtful a moment.
Barney and Pomp had been listening with the deepest of interest.
“How far is it from here to the Satan’s Hole?” Frank finally asked.
“Oh, a matter of fifty miles I reckon,” replied Beaver Bill.
He pointed to the westward.
 “Right down yonder inter the Great Basin,” he continued, “powerful
curus country down there. Don’t do to travel far on any of their rivers,
for they mought switch ye under ground any minnit.”
“Yes,” replied Frank. “I am aware that most of the rivers in the
Great Basin run underground.”
“I reckon so, straunger.”
“Golly, Marse Frank!” cried Pomp, “don’ yo’ s’pose dis gentleman
would go wif us an’ show us de way?”
The same thought had struck Frank.
He turned inquiringly to the trapper. The latter wore an inscrutable
expression upon his grizzled face.
“Wall, I don’t mind givin’ ye a lift on it, friends,” he said, cheerily.
“I will pay you well,” declared Frank.
“Don’t want no pay!” exclaimed the trapper, indignantly. “I ain’t that
kind of a chap yew kin bet.”
“At least we shall be everlastingly in your debt,” insisted Frank.
“No, ye won’t, nuther. I’m glad to be able to help ye out. Moreover,
I’ve got a bit of a grudge against Mason myself, an’ I’d like ter see
him suffer.”
“Then it is agreed!” cried Frank.
“Thar’s my word on’t.”
“But what will you do with your pony?”
“He’ll trail on all right enuff.”
“All right. Get right into the wagon.”
Beaver Bill climbed into the wagon and Frank went to the dasher.
“How many men do you think Mason has with him?” he asked.
 “He mought have a dozen.”
“What is their game?”
“I heard that they watch for a chance ter cross ther Death Valley,
and pick up nuggets, but I reckon there’s sumthin’ else keeps ’em
busy thar.”
The old trapper winked significantly.
“Eh?” said Frank, failing to understand.
“Don’t ye embrace the idee?”
“No.”
“It means that they’re in the reproducin’ business, that is ther
mannyfacter of bad coin.”
Frank gave a gasping cry.
“Counterfeiting?”
“Yes.”
“Well, I never! Are you quite sure of that, Bill?”
The trapper inclined his head.
“Yew bet I am!” he declared. “Thar’s lots of ther stuff goes down
towards Lone Tree, and over inter Mexico. It’s a purty good imitation,
too! They do say that Mason has a die for throwing out silver dollars
by ther thousand.”
Frank Reade, Jr., was quite overcome by this announcement. It
was entirely unexpected.
 CHAPTER VI.
THE MEXICAN RIDER.

This was something utterly foreign to Frank’s expectation.

To run upon a gang of counterfeiters in this out of the way part of
the world was certainly a surprise party.
But the young inventor had learned to take the unexpected with
other things in a philosophical manner.
Certainly there could have been no safer part of the world than this
for the manufacture of counterfeit coin.
It was easy to evade the officers of the law, and also easy to
secrete any quantity of the bogus stuff where it could not be located.
The Steam Horse went ahead at quite a rapid gait.
Beaver Bill’s pony followed on behind at a rapid gallop.
The trained animal would at intervals lift its head and neigh shrilly.
“I tell ye, I’m proud of that leetle hoss,” declared the trapper. “He
mayn’t be able to jog quite so fast as yer Steam Hoss, but he knows
a heap an’ I kin tell yer he’s bin in many a hot scrimmage with me an’
many a time but fer the leetle chap I’d never hev got through.”
“Indeed!” said Frank. “I should think you would be much attached
to him.”
“You bet I am, straunger.”
The face of the country here had the happy virtue of being level,
though bare and arid.
 There were vast tracts of red clay burned beneath the sun’s rays
as hard as adamant.
Then sandy plains were crossed and alkali basins.
At times gnarled pillars of coagulated rock were encountered,
making a rival of the Bad Lands.
This showed unmistakably the action of the glacial period. Many
strange and wonderful freaks of nature were encountered.
But after a time a long, high-capped range of hills began to show
up to the westward.
Suddenly Beaver Bill sprang up and pointed to the hills, shouting:
“Thar, friends, do yer see that break in ther range, a kind of a
gateway like?”
It required but a glance to see a deep notch in the range of the
hills.
It was indeed like a gateway through the mountain wall.
The sky beyond looked peculiar and hazy in its depths.
“Is that——” began Frank.
“Yas,” interrupted Bill, “thet’s ther entrance to Satan’s Hole.”
“But it looks as if there was open country beyond,” declared Frank.
The trapper shook his head slowly.
“That ain’t so!” he declared. “Ye’ll find that ye’re in a level valley
with hills all around ye when ye get in there.”
Frank gazed long and critically at the point in question.
“And you say that Mason and his gang are located there?”
“The best I kin make out.”
 “All right,” declared Frank. “We’ll soon find out what kind of a place
it is.”
The Steam Horse now was sent forward rapidly.
Beaver Bill’s pony seemed to be getting exhausted.
It was now a question as to what to do. But the trapper solved the
question.
“I’ll tell ye what to do,” he declared. “Ye know the way to Satan’s
Hole now. Ye kin let me out yer an’ I’ll rest my pony up and be along
up ter-morrer.”
“Very well,” agreed Frank. “We shall look for you to-morrow.”
“Yas.”
The Steam Horse was brought to a stop and Beaver Bill left the
wagon.
He proceeded to loosen the saddle from his pony’s back and give
him freedom.
Fortunately there was a brief space of green grass here, and the
little animal was enabled to get a bite.
The Steam Horse went on to the entrance of Death Valley.
Soon a plateau was encountered and crossed, then a plain
beyond it, and then the travelers saw the pass before them.
Upon either hand rose mighty walls of rock.
It was like the veritable gateway to a Hades, and in spite of
themselves all experienced a queer chill.
But Frank kept on until the Steam Horse was fairly in the pass.
The floor of the pass was of smooth rock as level as a floor.
Beyond, now the treacherous valley was revealed as plain as
could be.
 It looked like an ordinary sandy desert plain.
That was all.
The uninitiated would never have suspected its treacherous
character.
“Golly!” cried Pomp, in surprise. “It don’ look no diffrunt from any
oder valley, Marse Frank.”
“That’s so,” agreed Frank. “Neither do I see any signs of human
life hereabouts.”
The young inventor was thinking of Mason and his gang.
But Barney had begun to sniff the air, and said:
“Bejabers, it’s a divil av a funny smell loike in the air.”
Both Pomp and Frank now realized this.
It seemed like sulphuretted hydrogen, and thoroughly impregnated
the atmosphere. Also, with close scrutiny, they could now see
unmistakably the sandy trail of death.
There it led across the desert waste, and objects in the sand might
be the victims of the death trail. These were certainly plainly visible.
The adventurers gazed upon the scene with peculiar sensations.
Then a blast of air came out from the valley.
It was a peculiar, withering heat, and caused all to gasp for air.
“It is right!” cried Frank; “this is certainly the Valley of Death.”
“Begorra, I believe yez!” cried Barney. “Shure, it luks enough loike
it.”
“Golly! I jes’ reckons nuffin’ wud lib in dar,” agreed Pomp.
This was plain to see.
 Not a tree or shrub or flowering plant or blade of grass relieved the
arid wastes of the Death Valley.
It was a ghostly, forbidding sight.
Even at that distance with a glass Frank was enabled to see the
forms of the victims of the gases strewn along the sandy trail of
death.
For a time the travelers gazed upon the scene.
Then Frank aroused himself.
“This will never do!” he cried. “We are losing time here.”
“Dat am a fac’, Marse Frank,” cried Pomp.
“Begorra, yez won’t go ahead will yez?” asked Barney.
“I don’t think we will follow the sandy trail of death,” replied Frank.
“But I would like to know where Mason’s den is.”
At this moment a sudden startling sound smote upon the ears of
all.
The evening air was very still and calm and sound traveled a good
ways.
It was plainly enough the distant beat of horses’ hoofs.
It seemed to come from a point above, and now Frank saw a
broad trail winding to the right up the side of the pass.
At the same moment the hoof strokes became plainer and then
into sight rode a man of peculiar appearance.
He was tall and dark and wore a gay Mexican suit of silk and
velvet with glittering patent leather boots.
He was armed to the teeth and rode a large dark colored horse
bedecked with gay trappings.
 The animal had been trotting down the trail, but now came to an
instant halt pulled upon his haunches by the rider.
It was as if some gay Mexican cavalier had burst upon the scene
fresh from sunny Mexico.
The rider sat for a moment like a statue, utterly dumfounded at
sight of the Steam Horse.
If his appearance had been a surprise to Frank and the others, the
sight of the Steam Horse was a revelation to the unknown.
“Perdito!” he gasped, in a thrilled voice. “Am I dreaming? Is it the
devil? St. Michael forbid!”
Frank heard his startled words, and at once showed himself at the
dasher of the wagon.
“No, it is not the devil,” he replied, “it is the invention of a human
being.”
The Mexican was unable to reply for a moment.
Finally, however, he doffed his sombrero with great gravity and
replied;
“Buenos, senor! You have the advantage—I have never seen you
before. I am Jose Castrello!”
“And I am Frank Reade, Jr.,” replied Frank. “I come from the East.”
“And I am from Mexico, senor,” replied the Mexican, politely. “I am
pleased to greet you.”
“The same,” replied Frank.
“But senor will pardon me. I have never seen a horse made of iron
before.”
“You have seen locomotives!”
“Ah, that I have. They are plenty now in Mexico.”
 “Well, this is built on the same principle, only in the shape of a
horse and designed to go without rails.”
“Si, senor, now I see!” cried the Mexican, spurring his horse
nearer; “but it is a wonderful thing.”
“Everybody thinks so!” said Frank, modestly.
“Yet it would be as naught and the senors as well should you enter
yonder valley.”
“Ah,” said Frank, “then that is really the death valley!”
“Si, senor!”
“A terrible place!”
“Indeed. Many worthy people have lost their lives in that death
trap.”
“There should be a notice warning people of the danger.”
“The senor is right!”
Castrello had now reined his horse up quite near to the wagon.
Frank who was a keen student of human nature was doing his
best to size the fellow up.
As far as he could see, he was a gay type of the Mexican sport,
fond of cards and wine and women.
He did not seem to be a rascal or a cut-throat in any sense of the
term.
But what was he doing in this part of the country?
A sudden thought came to Frank.
He might be, like others, a customer of Mason’s, and have come
here for a supply of counterfeit money with which to return to Mexico
and defraud his countrymen.
 The more Frank weighed this matter, the better satisfied he was of
the truth.
But yet he was desirous of making sure of the fact.
How to do this without arousing suspicion was a question.
But the Mexican’s curiosity seemed also to have been aroused,
and he asked, in a guarded way:
“Has senor traveled far?”
Frank embraced the opportunity.
“We have traveled from the East,” he replied. “And we have come
here to find a certain person, whom you may know.”
 CHAPTER VII.
THE PARLEY.

Castrello gave a violent start.

Frank’s declaration was a genuine surprise to him.
“Ah!” he exclaimed. “You have me by surprise, senor.”
“Do I?”
“I cannot conceive who the person is to whom senor refers.”
“Ah, do you not know anybody in this locality?”
The Mexican hesitated.
“Is the senor hunting for wealth?”
“Perhaps so,” replied Frank. “At least I have been led to believe
that I could find that which would give me wealth here.”
A light overspread Castrello’s face.
“You have come right!” he cried. “Senor Mason will give you what
you want.”
Frank knew at once that he had gained his point.
“Ah!” he exclaimed, coolly, “then you believe that?”
“I know it.”
“How can I find Mason?”
“That trail will lead to his home.”
“Ah! but I cannot hope to go up there with my Steam Horse.”
 “Not?”
“No! Would you mind doing me a favor? Kindly ride up and ask
Mason to come down here.”
The Mexican made a profound bow.
He laughed until one could see his white teeth beneath his dark
mustache.
“Senor, I am glad to do your bidding!” he declared.
Then he touched the horse with the jangling spurs upon his heels,
and the animal went out of sight in a twinkling in the narrow path.
Time passed slowly.
It seemed as if an hour passed, and Barney ventured to remark:
“Begorra, it’s moighty quare where the black-eyed chap has gone
anyway.”
“I jes’ finks if he don’ cum soon dat he ain’ gwine to,” declared
Pomp.
“Well, it is a trifle odd,” remarked Frank. “If he don’t show up very
soon we’ll try to ascertain why.”
Another half hour passed.
It was beginning to get quite dark in the gorge.
Still Senor Castrello failed to put in an appearance.
Frank was now out of patience.
“Enough of this!” he said, with a shrug of the shoulders. “We have
got to find a good camping place.”
“Be jabers that fellow was a fraud!” declared Barney. “Yez kin be
sure av that, Misther Frank.”
 “I believe you are right, Barney. Well, we will find a good place to
lay up until daybreak and then we will investigate.”
“Is it out av the canyon ye’d be afther goin’, Misther Frank?”
“Yes.”
“All roight, sor!”
Barney started the Steam Horse out of the gorge.
But now a genuine surprise awaited the party. Turning a short
corner in the pass Barney pulled the Horse up.
“Whurroo!” he yelled. “Wud yez look at that, Misther Frank!”
In the pass not one hundred yards ahead drawn up in solid line
and armed to the teeth was a line of men.
Back of them two men were seen on horseback. That one of them
was the Mexican, Castrello, Frank saw at once.
It was a shrewd game that the fellow had played.
Of course he was in the game with Mason and in league with the
counterfeiters.
Frank regarded the line of armed men and smiled.
They evidently thought to check the Steam Horse with this display
of strength. But Frank only smiled.
The Steam Horse was brought to a stop, though Frank now took
the reins.
“Begorra, it’s the divils av’ counterfeiters thimselves, I take it,”
cried Barney.
“So it is,” said Frank. “And they think they have got us in a trap.”
The Celt roared.
“Be jabers, we’ll soon learn thim betther than that,” he cried.
 “Luk out dar, Marse Frank,” cried Pomp, “don’ yo’ see dat man
wife de white flag!”
This was true.
One of the counterfeiters was advancing with a flag of truce. Frank
at once opened the door of the wagon and stepped out into view.
The fellow advanced to within twenty yards of the Steam Horse
and exclaimed:
“Hello, straungers!”
“Hello!” replied Frank.
“I reckon ye don’t know where ye are, do ye?”
“We are in the Death Pass, are we not?” replied Frank.
“That’s right! Wall, thar’s only one man has any right to this pass,
an’ his name is Bert Mason.”
“Indeed!”
“Ye sent word that ye wanted to see him. We’ve got information
that you are a spy, and you’ll have ter prove yerself, or ye can’t go
out of here alive.”
“Who says I cannot?”
“Bert Mason.”
“Who is he?”
“Why, he owns this pass.”
“Oh, he does, eh?” said Frank, with sarcasm. “He is a fortunate
man, isn’t he? Suppose I do not prove myself?”
“Then ye can’t go out of here alive.”
“That is serious!”
 “I reckon ye’ll find it so.”
“What will keep me from going out of here?”
“I reckon thar’s enough on us. We’ll riddle that go-cart of yours
with rifle balls.”
Frank laughed scornfully.
“Fire away!” he cried. “I defy you!”
“You do, eh?”
“Yes.”
“Shall I take that word back?”
“Yes, if you want to; but stay.”
“Wall?”
“Who is Bert Mason and what is his business? Can you tell me?”
“Well, I reckon you know well enough,” replied the truce bearer,
curtly.
“You think so? Well, I think I do. You are all a pack of
counterfeiters and rascals; but that’s all right. I’ll not trouble you if Mr.
Bert Mason will do me a favor.”
“What’s that?”
“Well, I will explain. Up in Silver City there is a poor chap named
Benjamin Astley, who is under sentence of death. It is believed that
he is identical with Bert Mason and that he is guilty of the murder of
Clem Johnson. Now, if Bert Mason will do the right thing and clear
that poor fellow, that is all that I will ask.”
The truce bearer listened attentively to this statement. Then he
laughed in a strange, hollow way.
“Wall, I’m sorry for that poor devil. I s’pose ye want Mason to go up
there and give himself up?”
 “I see no other or better way.”
“Wall, you will be a heap bigger fool than ye are now when he
does.”
“Ah! can you answer for him?”
“You bet I can.”
“Perhaps you are Mason?”
“That ain’t here nor there. I don’t keer to entertain any proposal of
ther kind, an’ we call upon you to surrender.”
Frank had thus far pursued clever tactics in drawing the fellow out.
He had gained much valuable information.
He realized, however, now that the crisis was at hand.
“What if I surrender?” he said, keenly. “What are your terms?”
“Unconditional surrender.”
“That means that you will cut my throat after being taken. Well, I
think it will be just as well for me to fight. So I decline to surrender.”
“Ye do, eh?”
“Yes.”
The fellow turned short about and marched back to the file of men.
His message seemed to anger them, for a mad yell went up on the
air.
Then the command was heard:
“Give it to ’em, boys!”
The next moment the crash of fire-arms broke the air of the gorge.
A volley of rifle balls came whistling up the defile.
But they rattled harmlessly against the steel shutters of the wagon.
 Frank and Barney and Pomp all sprang to the loopholes and
opened fire upon the villains.
Volley after volley was fired at the Steam Horse by the
counterfeiters.
But it did no damage whatever.
On the other hand, Barney and Pomp picked off a number of the
counterfeiters with deadly aim.
Indeed, given time, the little party of three could have cleaned out
the whole gang.
It seemed that the counterfeiters had become aware of the fact
that their shots had not told, for the order came for a charge.
Up the defile they came on a charge in headlong fashion.
But Frank was ready for them.
He knew that it would never do to let the villains get hands upon
the Horse or wagon.
To charge was the only method, so Frank opened the throttle wide
and sent the Steam Horse ahead.
The horse went down into the midst of the yelling gang like a
thunderbolt.
The effect was most dismaying to the outlaws.
A path was literally mowed through their ranks. Their efforts to
check the Horse were utterly futile.
Down through their midst the Steam Horse went, and clearing
them, went on out of the gorge.
Frank let the Horse run for ten miles rapidly, until a good spot to
camp was found.