ROBERT JOSEPH TAYLOR University of Michigan ∗ LINDA M. CHATTERS University of Michigan ∗∗ AMANDA TOLER WOODWARD Michigan State University ∗∗∗ EDNA BROWN University of Connecticut Racial and Ethnic Differences in Extended Family, Friendship, Fictive Kin, and Congregational Informal Support Networks This study examined differences in kin and Black Caribbeans had larger fictive kin networks nonkin networks among African Americans, than non-Hispanic Whites, but non-Hispanic Caribbean Blacks (Black Caribbeans), and non- Whites with fictive kin received support from Hispanic Whites. Data are taken from the them more frequently than African Americans National Survey of American Life, a nation- and Black Caribbeans. The discussion notes ally representative study of African Americans, the importance of examining kin and nonkin net- Black Caribbeans, and non-Hispanic Whites. works, as well as investigating ethnic differences Selected measures of informal support from within the Black American population. family, friendship, fictive kin, and congregation/ church networks were utilized. African Ameri- Involvement with kin and nonkin is an cans were more involved in congregation net- essential component of daily life for the vast works, whereas non-Hispanic Whites were more majority of Americans. Family and friendship involved in friendship networks. African Ameri- support networks are important for coping cans were more likely to give support to extended with the ongoing stresses of daily life (e.g., family members and to have daily interaction Benin & Keith, 1995), providing a place to with family members. African Americans and live when confronting homelessness (Taylor, Chatters, & Celious, 2003), and in coping with physical and mental health problems School of Social Work, 1080 South University Avenue, Ann (Cohen, Underwood, & Gottlieb, 2000; Lincoln, Arbor, MI 48109-1106 ([email protected]). 2000). This study explores differences between ∗School of Public Health, School of Social Work, 1080 African Americans, non-Hispanic Whites, and South University Avenue, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1106. Caribbean Blacks (Black Caribbeans) on several ∗∗School of Social Work, 655 Auditorium Road, East measures of family, friendship, fictive kin, and Lansing, MI 48824. religious congregation-based informal support ∗∗∗Department of Human Development & Family Studies, networks, using data from the National Survey of 348 Mansfield Rd., U-1058, Storrs, CT 06269-1058. American Life. The literature review begins with Key Words: extended family, friendship, church, religion, a discussion of the family solidarity model as the fictive kin, informal social support. theoretical perspective framing our analysis of Family Relations 62 (October 2013): 609 – 624 609 DOI:10.1111/fare.12030 610 Family Relations kin and nonkin relations and social support. This and receiving support (Krause, 2002; Taylor, is followed by a review of research findings on Lincoln, & Chatters, 2005). The family solidarity Black – White differences in family and nonkin paradigm thus allows for an assessment of support networks and a review of available social support network structure and function information on informal support networks within across a diverse set of dimensions within the Caribbean Black population in the United kin and nonkin networks. Consequently, the States. This article concludes with a description family solidarity model is appropriate for of the focus and goals of this investigation. examining race and ethnic differences in various dimensions of family, friendship, fictive kin, and congregational support networks. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVE ON FAMILY AND NONKIN RELATIONS:FAMILY SOLIDARITY MODEL Family Support Networks The conceptual framework guiding this study Research on Black – White differences for is the family solidarity model (McChesney & receipt of support from family members has Bengtson, 1988). As the name suggests, the yielded mixed results that can be character- family solidarity model views the connections ized by three general collections of findings and bonds between members as an important and (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004). One set of studies fundamental organizing feature of the family. indicates that Blacks are more likely than Whites The family solidarity model further states that to give and receive assistance from their support understanding family functioning in a particular networks (e.g., Benin & Keith, 1995; Gerstel & domain (such as support provision) requires an Gallager, 1994; Johnson & Barer, 1995). This appreciation for other factors that characterize finding was especially evident in research stud- family members’ attitudes, behaviors, and ies conducted in the 1980s through the early the qualitative aspects of family relationships 1990s (e.g., Hatch, 1991; Hogan, Hao, & Parish, (e.g., expressed closeness, interactions). The 1990; Mutran, 1985). Another set of studies family solidarity model (Bengtson, Giarrusso, indicates that Whites are more likely to give Mabry, & Silverstein, 2002; Nye & Rushing, and receive support than Blacks (e.g., Hogan, 1969) identifies a set of dimensions that char- Eggebeen, & Clogg, 1993; Jayakody, 1998). acterize family relations that focus on family Finally, a third set of studies found either no interactions, affect (e.g., feelings of closeness Black – White differences in kin support net- to family), and behaviors (receiving and giving works or that depending on the measure used, support). The family solidarity model moves Blacks or Whites had greater levels of involve- beyond an exclusive focus on enacted support ment in kin network (Eggebean, 1992; Kim & exchanges (e.g., receiving and giving support) McKenry, 1998; Peek, Coward, & Peek, 2000; which are often narrowly defined (i.e., monetary Peek & O’Neill, 2001; Sarkisian & Gerstel, exchanges) and constrained by factors such as 2004, December; Silverstein & Waite, 1993). poverty and geographic distance. Instead, family A related body of research on caregiving for dimensions such as interaction and affection are older adults with dementia indicates that though incorporated that are also relevant and important African American caregivers report more posi- in characterizing family relationships. Further, tive appraisals of caregiving than Whites, there despite some debate in the literature, the family are no significant differences in the amount of solidarity paradigm also incorporates assess- informal support received (Dilworth-Anderson, ments of conflict within families (see Bengtson Williams, & Gibson, 2002). et al., 2002; Connidis & McMullin, 2002). Discrepant findings for Black – White dif- The family solidarity model is also well ferences in support networks are attributable suited for examining nonkin networks. For to several factors (Sarkisian & Gerstel, 2004), instance, research on congregation support including differences in (a) the age of the pop- networks among Blacks and Whites identifies ulations studied (e.g., young mothers, adults, the presence of several dimensions including elderly adults), (b) the life circumstances of frequency of interaction with church members, study populations (e.g., poverty, single moth- degree of affection for church members, and ers), (c) whether support was examined in frequency of negative interactions with church relation to crisis versus commonplace situations members, in addition to frequency of giving (e.g., emergencies, serious health problems, Racial and Ethnic Differences in Informal Support Networks 611 caregiving), (d) the types of support examined For instance, people frequently describe mem- (e.g., instrumental, emotional), and (e) the spe- bers of church networks using kinship terms in cific kin groups examined (e.g., parents, adult which fellow congregation members are called children, grandparent, siblings, other relatives). ‘‘Brother’’ or ‘‘Sister’’ and church members Finally, a variety of methodological issues in are regarded as one’s ‘‘church family’’ (Lin- this literature include differences in the concep- coln & Mamiya, 1990). Consequently, in some tualization and measurement of social support instances, members of fictive kin networks and (see Cohen et al., 2000). The goal of this study congregational support networks may overlap. is to provide insight into Black – White differ- The majority of fictive kin research is based ences in family support by examining several on small ethnographic studies. Evidence from aspects of these support networks, in addition qualitative studies suggests that non-Hispanic to receiving and providing assistance (enacted Whites engage in fictive kin relationships. support). Further, our analysis also focuses on However, because very few studies examine Black – White differences in nonkinship support fictive kin networks within this group, this issue networks. has yet to be fully explored (Chatters et al., 1994; also see Mac Rae, 1992). To our knowledge this study is the first investigation of Black – White Friendship, Fictive Kin, and Congregation differences in fictive kin networks. Support Networks Friendship Networks. Surprisingly little re- Congregation Support Networks. A large body search focuses on racial differences in friendship of research documents the prominent role of networks, or exclusively on African American religion and churches in the lives of African friendships. Available findings on racial differ- Americans (Taylor, Chatters, & Levin, 2004). ences are mixed, but the preponderance of evi- Despite the importance of religion to African dence indicates that Whites are