1. The Effects of Multiplexity of Support Providers and Strong Ties’ Visualization on Viewers’ Perception of Personal Networks Isidro Maya Jariego Daniel Holgado Esperanza Vergara Universidad de Sevilla (España)

2. Visualization is a powerful tool for exploring network data and communicating their properties. But it is important to understand how viewers perceive graphical representations.

3. In this paper we explore the reactions and interpretations of respondents when they visualize their own personal networks......and compare two different ways of representing personal networks...

4. Strong ties vs. Multiplexity of support providers

5. We analyse the personal networks of university students that commute almost every day between Alcalá and Sevilla –to analyse the changes in structure and composition associated with this ecological transition.

6. Method 1.We interviewed 208 university students, obtaining information on their personal networks. 2.We elaborated 3 graphic representations of each network (624 representations). 3.And finally, 6 months after the first interview, the graphs were shown to the respondents (n = 173), (a)To examine their reactions in a qualitative interview and (b)To compare two ways of representing the personal network.

7. Method /1. Personal networks The Arizona Social Support Interview Schedule was applied to analyse the core of support providers (six types of social support). Then we ask the respondent to complete the list of people until 25 alteri. Finally, we proceed with the pair tie evaluations (25 x 25), obtaining also information on the ‘type of relationship’, ‘place of residence’ and ‘usual way of communication’ of each alteri.

8. Method /2. Graphical representation Three dimensions were used to represent the personal networks: –Composition: blue nodes are from Alcalá, red nodes from Sevilla and black nodes from other places... –Multiplexity of the providers: the size of the node represent the number of types of support according to ASSIS. –Strength of the relationship: 0, ‘they don’t know each other’; 1 ‘they know each other’; 2 ‘they know very well each other’.

9. Type 1. Strong ties’ representation Composition with ‘level 2’ in strength of relationship

10. Type 2. Multiplexity of support providers’ representation Composition and number of types of support by each node

11. Method /3. The interview Both types of graphics were presented to each respondent (altering the order of presentation in half of the sample). During the interview the students were asked (a) to describe, (b) to divide in groups, (c) to detect key actors and (d) to inform of errors in each graphic.

12. Method /3. The interview And finally they were informed of the different ways of constructing both graphics......before of comparing both types in a list of characteristics: aesthetic, novelty, utility, etc.

13. Results: reactions, interpretations... And comparison between two types of representation

14. Results /1. Reactions and interpretations General impression of validity of the personal network’s description. And few errors... Respondents describe their personal networks in “concentric circles”, from center to periphery.

15. Results /1. Reactions and interpretations The ‘Strong ties’ representation induces a description based in groups and social spaces... The representation of the multiplexity of support providers induces a description based in groups of different levels of “importance”.

16. Results /2. Comparison of two types of representation (n = 170)

17. Personal networks visual representation It seems that social support is a more salient characteristic in the perception of the respondents than the structural properties of the personal network. But the visualization of strong ties is a way to facilitate the identification of clear groups in the personal network of the respondent.

18. Laboratorio de Redes Personales y Comunidades Universidad de Sevilla isidromj@us.es