European Sociological Review VOLUME 20 NUMBER 1 FEBRUARY 2004 63–77 63
European Sociological Review vol. 20 no. 1 © Oxford University Press 2004; all rights reserved
Types of Conjugal Networks,
Conjugal Conflict and Conjugal
Quality
Eric Widmer, Jean Kellerhals and René Levy
This article considers how various configurations of network characteristics affect conjugal
quality. To investigate this issue, we use data from a large survey on conjugal functioning,
based on 910 married couples with co-resident children living in Switzerland. Using reports
from both male and female partners, we first empirically define six types of conjugal
networks. We then explore the extent to which those types affect conjugal conflict and
conjugal quality, making a distinction between direct, indirect and buffering effects. We
find that network types have significant direct and indirect effects on conjugal quality but
no significant buffering effect. We further discuss the importance of our results for
understanding the functioning of contemporary couples within larger relational contexts.
Introduction
Dyadic relationships of the nuclear family, such as those
between husbands and wives, do not exist in a vacuum
and scholars have underlined how important it is to take
into account the social networks in which they are
embedded (Bott, 1957; Burger and Milardo, 1995). Cap-
turing the most central and relevant features of social
networks for conjugal functioning is, however, not
straightforward. Most research interested in the effects
of social networks on conjugal interactions has focused
on specific variables, such as network composition
(Burger and Milardo, 1995), network interference (Klein
and Milardo, 2000), spouses’ network overlap (Stein et al.,
1992; Bryant and Conger, 1999), network transitivity
(Widmer, 1999), or perceived support from the network
(Cohen and Wills, 1985).
These studies have provided valuable information on
couple functioning within larger contexts. They can be
complemented by considering those features as parts of
structural and functional configurations, or types, of
conjugal networks. A typological approach to social
groupings stresses the interrelations existing among
group features. It assumes that structural and functional
variables which define the relational contexts of couples
may have quite different consequences by virtue of their
being embedded in specific configurations (Broderick,
1993). Thus, considering patterns of network character-
istics, rather than network characteristics independently
from one another, may provide new insights on conjugal
functioning in broader relational contexts. Based on
data drawn from a large representative sample of couples
living in Switzerland (Widmer et al., 2003), this article
constructs a multi-faceted typology of conjugal networks
and measures its association with conjugal conflict and
conjugal quality.
Structural and Functional Characteristics
of Support Networks
When studying the effects of social support, attention
has been especially directed to several specific structural
and functional characteristics of social networks (Cohen
and Wills, 1985).

64 WIDMER, KELLERHALS, AND LEVY
First, scholars have distinguished between interac-
tional, material, and psychological functions of networks.
A network can provide strong emotional support without
necessarily providing strong financial support. Also, cor-
relations between frequency of interactions and psycho-
logical import of network members are far from one,
suggesting that these are independent dimensions of
social networks (Milardo, 1989; Surra and Milardo,
1991). In general, psychological components of networks
are found to be much more influential on individual
outcomes than interactional components (Cohen and
Wills, 1985).
Second, there is evidence that relations with different
classes of network members vary systematically in terms
of types of social exchange. As a rule, closely related rela-
tives provide a greater degree of support, and do so in a
wider variety of domains, than friends and neighbours;
friends are more active in terms of companionship
(Coenen-Huether et al., 1994; Wellman and Wortley,
1989). Because of these variations, it has been hypothesized
that network composition (friends versus relatives) has
an effect on conjugal outcomes. In an exploratory study,
Burger and Milardo (1995) found, for instance, that
husbands report greater marital conflict and ambiva-
lence in conjugal relationships when wives interact fre-
quently with friends rather than with relatives.
Third, two persons living in a couple may have quite
different and unequally supportive networks, since net-
works show various degrees of overlap (Stein et al.,
1992). It has been hypothesized that the spouse with
greater support from his or her network, does better
than the other (Baumgartner, 1993). Alternatively, net-
work types might be more influential for women than
for men as women are more involved in kinship connec-
tions: they report larger networks of relatives and greater
contact and exchange with them (Coenen Huther et al.,
1994; Johnson, 2000). The centrality of women in the
Western kinship system (Adams, 1970) may be associ-
ated with a greater sensitivity to relationships with rela-
tives than that of men. Indeed, earlier research provides
some indication of gender differences in the influence of
social networks, perceptions of relationship approval
from family members being more influential for women
than for men in predicting the long-term continuation
of premarital relationships (Sprecher and Felmlee,
1992). Furthermore, the order of influence of network
factors on conjugal satisfaction might be different for
men and women, although empirical evidence is rather
tangential in this regard (Bryant and Conger, 1999). In
any case, it is important to examine network effects for
men and women separately.
Empirical work suggests that features of social net-
works are not independent of each other but are rather
organized in discrete, qualitatively distinct, configura-
tions, with emergent properties which might well have
different consequences for couple functioning. For
instance, support provided by the network might have
quite different consequences depending on whether it is
or is not perceived as interference within couple func-
tioning (Holman, 1981; Johnson and Milardo, 1984).
Also, available support has a quite different meaning
depending on whether it comes from friends or relatives
(Coenen-Huther et al., 1994). Only a typological
approach can take into account these various influences
and their complex interactions. Despite the fruitful con-
tributions of the typological approach to the under-
standing of family functioning (Kantor and Lehr, 1975;
Reiss, 1981; Olson et al., 1988; Olson and McCubbin,
1989), typologies of conjugal networks are scarce, most
of the time unidimensional, and mostly based on conve-
nience samples or case studies. Most of them have not
been associated with conjugal functioning (for an excep-
tion, see Stein et al., 1992) or have failed to show con-
vincing evidence that such an association exists (Bott,
1957). Small sample sizes, unidimensionality of network
constructs, and insufficient or absent measures of conju-
gal functioning are recurrent problems in research on
the effect of types of conjugal networks on conjugal
functioning.
Buffering, Direct and Indirect Effects
of Conjugal Networks
Research shows that individuals who perceive that
extensive support is available to them if they need it, do
better than others on a variety of outcomes. Two different
models account for the effect of support networks on
individual outcomes (Cohen and Wills, 1985). One
model states that support is related to positive outcomes
only for subjects under stress. Thus, support networks
have a buffering effect (Kaplan et al., 1977) because they
protect subjects from the negative influence of stressful
events or situations. Quite differently, the main effect
model assumes that support networks can have an effect
on individuals irrespective of whether persons are under
stress or not (Cohen and Wills, 1985). In this case, support
networks influence personal outcomes either through a
direct effect on outcomes, or because they are associated
with a differential exposure to stressors (indirect effect),
not because of a larger insensitivity to stressors for sup-
ported individuals (buffering effect).