Data Report
Our data consists of 18 people: nine female and nine males. They range from the ages of
21-55. We have divided them in to four groups: 21-24, 25-27, 28-34, 35-55 each group
consisting of 50/50 subjects male and female.
There are some general trends that we have seen throughout our entire range of subjects.
Roughly an equal number of males and females are found in ALL circles, with only a 10%
difference of more females. Even though the statistics are very similar we believe the reasoning
for the 10% increase is due to the fact that women express their communication more through
words and are more in tune to the emotional well being of others (Graph 1.1).
Within the sex of our reported data there is a continuous trend of having immediate
family members (parents and siblings) in the concentric circle, then extended family ( cousins,
aunts, uncles, grandparents and close friends) in the next circle, followed by a range of different
types of people (church members, co-workers, school friends) in the outmost circle. 95% of our
subjects placed their parents in the inner circle. It is obvious that the bond of attachment we
develop with both of our parents plays a relevant role throughout our entire life.
It also shows us that it is not just with the mother that attachment is relevant, as it is in
most infant-parent relationships. Both parents being in the concentric circle is most likely a
result from Bowlby’s second phase- the focus on one or more figures phase. Here is where an
infant begins to aim her attachment behaviors less dependent on just one person. No full-blown
attachment exists. At this stage, there is no one person as the “safe base”. I am sure that if there
is a loving, involved father (or mother) figure who was not the “safe base” now he has developed
a secure attachment that will be ever-present in his child’s life.
1
Also, because of the noticeable evidence of immediate family in the concentric circle and
middle circle; it is clear that we continue to have a strong relationship with people that have
always been in our lives. We spend a lot of time with our immediate family and attachments are
achieved at some level between all individuals. It is also believed that family members have a
small obligation to one another: that when one person in the family is in hard predicament it is
our responsibility to help the person out. Knowing this may also supply a higher attachment to
family members.
As people get older they add on average one person per year into their social network. It
also seems to be of relevant information that at the ages of 21-24 family members appear more
often then friends on average, 27 family members to only 5 friends per subject. In the ages of 2534 there is a large increase of friends, about 8 new friends are added per year - while family is
being removed. Then a turn around for the age group of 35-55 family regains numbers as friends
decrease. This information tells us that people have strong networks consisting of family
members earlier and later in life. This may be due to the fact that until the age of 24 people may
still be supported by their family, may still live at home, and rely on their families to help them
start out in this big world for a few years. Between 25-34 people have been less reliant on their
family because they are developing new relationships with friends (other new parents, coworkers). Then suddenly around the age of 35, when a person is well developed with a job and
family of their own they become the “elders” more experienced for the new generation within
their family and they start to want to guide and direct their younger ones on the path that seems
most rewarding. Therefore causing more family orientated relationships. Throughout all of our
data, friends are a rare appearance in the concentric circle.
2
It is not just family that follows the pattern of increases in the ages of 21-25 and 35-55
with a decrease in the ages of 26-34. If looking at the data from an eagle’s eye it is clear that this
pattern is evident as a general trend (graph 2.1).
Besides the general trends, we observed in our data there were also some interesting
correlations with education. First the more education a person has the fewer amount of friends
appear in any of their circles. Our subjects who had the most education had the fewest amount
of people in their outermost circle, which consisted of general terms such as aunts, cousins, and
friends. In contrast to the general trend, an increase of friends among the 25-34 range, it seems
that people who are educated do not gain friends but rather have a constant value on family at
every age. This may be due to the crisis’ they have endured and the level of social status they
have developed. The higher education gives them more resources to respond with when in
crisis’ giving them a more logical way to come to a commitment. Since the person has educated
himself the family my respect and hold up the individual more therefore supplying positive
reinforcement, reliability, encouragement, advice and support. There by creating a stronger
attachment between family.
Finally, there is applicable information in regards to married people within our data. All
married subjects placed their spouse in the innermost circle, with an exception of one who is
going through a divorce and placed her husband in the outermost circle. Married subjects have
closer relationships than non-married subjects. (graph 3.1,3.2) Married and non-married people
follow the same trend: more people in the concentric circle with a steady decline to the outmost
circle. (graph 3.3) Married people also have more of the same sex relationships.
It seems that there is a continuous cycle in the networking of relationships. Slowly
people gain friends while family is removed. Then as a person ages and develops a family of
3
their own, they have more people in their network consisting mostly of family. Throughout all
of our data, females have strong bonds with females and vise versa for males. Showing that
maybe gender is important, not just when we are looking for playmates at young ages, but all
throughout our life. It seems that in the spectrum of life, we end up close to where we began our
journey, with family all around us.
4
Graph 1.1
Percentage in Social Networks
for Ages 21-24
47%
Total Females
Total males
53%
Percentage in Social Networks
for Ages 28-34
45%
Total Females
Total males
55%
Percentage in Social Networks
Percentage
of Males and
For ages 25-27
Females for Ages 25-27
46%
Total Females
54%
Total Males
Percentage in Social Networks
For ages 35-55
Total Females
44%
56%
Total Males
In all circles social network of
Females and Males Breakdown
females
45%
55%
males
5
Graph 2.1
Amout of people per circle in each age
group
60
40
Concentric
Next Circle
Outer Circle
20
0
21-24 25-27 28-34 35-55
6
Marriage Graphs
Graph 3.1 A
Graph 3.1 B
Married Subjects
Not m arried subjects
80
80
70
70
17
60
60
50
40
41
50
next
40
outermost
next
3
inner
11
30
20
5
7
10
outermost
16
9
7
9
16
10
25-27
28-34
Graph 3.2
1
6
inner
17
9
2
7
9
0
21-24
15
20
9
10
30
18
11
6
0
35-55
21-24
25-27
28-34
35-55
Total of non-married and married Relationships
outermost
non-married subjects
next
Married subjects
inner
0
10
Graph 3.3
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Married and non-married Avg. Subject
9
Avg. number of people
8
7
6
5
est. avg for nonmarried subjects
4
est. avg. for married subjects
3
2
1
0
inner
next
outermost
7