An Egonet Analysis Exploring Social Support Structures of Construction Workers: A Pilot Study

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Study area: Data was collected using site-based civil construction workers recruited from a Tier 1 construction company located in Brisbane, Queensland (Australia). On the day the researcher collected data, employees self-selected to participate in interviews and data was collected in December 2018.

Participants: Fifteen workers were interviewed, with one participant excluded as they were a visiting office worker at the site. Subsequently, 14 site civil construction workers (100% male) were included who were recruited across two separate sites (site 1 n = 9, site 2 n = 5. Demographic information was available in Table 1 and Table 2.

Methodology and research design: Using structured interviews and a survey*, this research adopted the use of a process designed to map the egonets of workers. This included obtaining details from participants about their social capital, along with information regarding the type and strength of social support from the social capital. Five sociograms were created for each participant including: (1) Social capital (type/diversity and closeness), (2) Emotional support (diversity of capital providing the support and the strength of its availability), (3) Practical support, (4) Informational support and (5) Companionship support. Sociograms were structured to present nominations who were perceived as closest, or as providing a lot of the type of support (positioned closer to the ego).

Materials: Participants were provided with category cards to help assist with identifying various types of social capital they could nominate. These cards included categories of parents, siblings, friends, work colleagues, sporting associations, professionals (e.g., general practitioners or mental health professionals), neighbors, in-laws). Participants were provided with details on the rating scales used in the research, e.g., social support, 3 = a lot of support, 2 = a moderate amount, 1 = provides a little, 0 = does not provide. If the capital did not provide a type of support, the social capital was removed from that egonet analysis. Examples of the meaning of each type of support were also used to assist the participant (e.g., emotional support means they provide you with love and caring when experiencing a problem).

Participants were provided with a survey that collected their demographic information and the Kessler-10 (K10). The K10 is a 10-item measure assessing symptoms of psychological distress over the past 4 weeks. It assesses symptoms related to depression (e.g., ‘how often did you feel so sad that nothing could cheer you up’) and anxiety (e.g., ‘how often did you feel so nervous that nothing could calm you down’). Items are self-reported using a 5-item Likert rating scale using the following 1 = none of the time, 2 = a little of the time, 3 = some of the time, 4 = most of the time and 5 = all of the time. Items were summed to create a minimum score of 10 and a maximum score of 50. Each participant was then categorized into two groups: (1) Without distress based on a ‘normal’ score between 10-19 = likely to be well and (2) With distress, which combined mild (20-24), moderate (25-29) and severe scores (30-50). These levels were combined as this research was interested in participants who had any level of distress, whether it was mild, moderate, or severe. The survey has been used extensively and has good reliability (α = 0.92) and validity measures across multiple countries and sample populations^35,36.

Procedure: The interviews were conducted across two different sites which were pre-arranged. Notifications were sent to participants using emails, flyers and safety talks. An explanation of the study was provided and each person was asked to provide signed informed consent.

When conducting the social network portion of the interview, participants were asked to identify people (or organizations) that they would approach in negative or stressful situations. The protocol of the free recall name generator method was used³⁷. A list of categories (people, professionals, organizations, etc.) was used to prompt name generation. Network connections were listed using their relationship (e.g., spouse, sibling, work colleague and friend), how long they had known the person for, their age and how close they feel to the person they had nominated.

Once the connection was established (i.e., the capital identified) social support information was collected about each of the nominations including the perceived strength/availability for each of the social support types (emotional, practical, informational and companionship) provided. The data was collected in a specific order, first generating the list of names, then each of the nominations’ details was obtained (gender, age, length of time known and their perceived closeness). Followed by details about the social support received from this person. Participants also completed the measure of psychological distress on paper. To avoid carry-over effects half of the participants completed the survey first, while the other half completed the social network analysis first³⁸.

Statistical analysis using UCINET was then used to create sociograms (egonets) of the participants’ networks which included their social capital and social support relational information. Statistical Packages for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 26 was used to provide the descriptives and to check the internal consistency (reliability) of the K10 data collected. Those that scored between 10-19 on the K10 were categorized as without distress and those scoring above 20 were categorized as with distress.

For the social capital, data representing the nominations in addition to their properties (i.e., their relationship (family, friend, work colleague), gender and self-reported closeness) was used for the first set of egonets. The second, third, fourth and fifth egonets were created on the amount of social support perceived as available to the participant (e.g., if the participant nominated the person as providing a lot of that type of support this was represented as being close to the ego in the network).

Each of the egonets was then compared and analyzed to determine the social capital diversity (i.e., their variation in types of connections), total sum and their closeness of relationships. Following this, each of the social support networks was compared in terms of their diversity, the total sum and the strength of the support available for each type of support.

RESULTS

Social capital: Overall, there was a range of capital available. The most commonly nominated capital was family, friends and/or work colleagues (Fig. 1). A summary of the differences in these nominations for workers with and without distress was presented in Fig. 2.

Social capital workers who had distress and who also had a partner, had very little close social capital compared to workers who did not have distress. Also, workers who were distressed tended to have work colleagues and very few friends outside of work. Workers who did not have distress nominated their partners and at least three other people in their network as very close and this appeared to be an important difference between those with and without distress (i.e., distressed workers with partners had fewer friends).

Fig. 1:

Overall social capital nominated

Fig. 2:

Social capital nominations by distress

Fig. 3:

Social capital and closeness egonet (without distress)

A typical egonet for those without distress for social capital was presented in Fig. 3 and with distress in Fig. 4. There appeared to be little difference in overall closeness for those without partners regardless of their level of distress in relation to the social capital and conclusions were unable to be drawn about overall capital and closeness for those without partners in this sample.

Fig. 4:

Social capital and closeness egonet (distressed)

Fig. 5:

Emotional support egonet (without distress)

Social support: Egonets were created for different social supports (emotional, tangible, informational, companionship). Each worker indicated the amount of social support provided by each of their nominated social capital and is represented by closeness to the ego on the egonet analysis (a lot is presented as closest to the ego on the diagram, whereas more distant connection provides less of that type of social support). If the person indicated that a particular connection did not provide this type of support, then the connection was removed from the egonet for that type of social support.

Emotional support: For these egonets, workers who did not have distress had more emotional support and more diversity in the type of connection providing the emotional support. This means that there were different sources like their partner (if they had one), friends, family, work colleagues, etc. that provided emotional support. Those who had distress had few people (i.e., they had less social capital available to provide them with emotional support) and subsequently they had less diversity in their networks in relation to providing emotional support. For those workers who were experiencing distress, two of these reported that they did not have any friends that were available to provide them with emotional support. In comparison, workers who did not have distress had at least one close friend that provided emotional support.

For participants without distress, who also nominated a partner, they listed their partner as a close provider of emotional support. Whereas there was a distressed participant (with a partner) who did not list their partner as a primary source of support. Instead, they listed a work colleague as someone who provides a lot of emotional support. An example egonet for a site worker without distress was presented in Fig. 5 and a site worker with distress in Fig. 6.

Tangible support, informational support and companionship: For the remaining types of social support, regardless of the relationship status and psychological well-being/distress, there appeared to be very little difference in the networks across each of these types of support. All participants nominated at least one to two sources as providing a lot of each of these support types, with closeness also reported consistently across each of these supports.

Fig. 6:

Emotional support egonet (distressed)

Further, there was also a lot of diversity including friends, neighbors, work colleagues and family. Overall, it appeared there was plenty of tangible, informational and companionship support available for those with and without distress.

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this pilot study was to explore the personal networks of construction workers with and without distress to determine if differences existed in the amount, type and closeness of social capital and social support. This pilot explored these networks to see if the size (number of connections), reported closeness of these relationships (strength) and the diversity (varying types of connections) were different and if these differences were consistent for workers with and without distress. There were two primary research questions: RQ¹ how does social capital differ in terms of the total sum and diversity for workers with and without psychological distress? RQ² are there any differences in the social support available (e.g., tangible, emotional, informational, companionship) from their social capital for workers with and without psychological distress?

In relation to RQ¹ workers without distress tended to have larger and more diverse networks. This early evidence suggests that for site-based construction workers having a large network that they feel close to, along with a variety of social capital is potentially important for helping to maintain psychological well-being. This evidence supports that an increase in diversity in addition to more availability of social capital was related to better well-being^20-23. This also supports Wright and Silard²⁷ who suggested that fewer connections were related to feelings of workplace distress. However, this research contradicted the findings of

Wang et al.³⁴, who reported no difference in the network size for those with and without depression. Together, these findings indicate that for these construction workers, it is important to have access to more people with a diverse network. This subsequently indicates that leveraging workplaces and recruiting work colleagues as a source of social capital to provide support could be beneficial for the construction industry to help support psychological well-being.

This pilot also indicated that specifically workers who were experiencing distress and had a partner, tended to have very few close relationships. Further, these workers also had low diversity in their social capital composition and had an overreliance on work colleagues as part of their networks (i.e., they had few to no friends outside of work). This supports evidence about the importance of a diverse network²⁵. Workers who were experiencing distress and did not have a partner also had very few close relationships, however with these networks it was difficult to determine if the critical issue relating to their distress was the diversity or closeness of these relationships. Subsequently, further research exploring these networks (or relationships) in greater detail is needed. Regardless, this initial evidence indicates that being close to one’s social capital allows access to different resources to help address a need as it arises. In relation to the workers who had few friends and were using work colleagues, this further supports the use of these relationships to assess if there is an opportunity for workplaces to implement initial support programs. This could help to provide appropriate support to workers who may need it.

To answer RQ² there were no distinct differences in social support for size or diversity in relation to practical, informational and companionship types of support. This seems to suggest that for these aspects of support, the size or diversity of the network does not impact distress, as outlined by Wang et al.³⁴. For emotional support, however, workers without distress (who also did not have a partner) reported more close relationships (their connections were stronger) and they also had more diversity in the types of people providing emotional support. This adds to the literature in terms of the importance of emotional support which indicates emotional support helped to improve stress^23,24. This early evidence also suggests that in the absence of a partner, workers have better psychological well-being when they have access to emotional support. This supports the need for further study and acknowledges that there is a potential for construction worksites to consider workplace programs (or interventions) to provide emotional support to bridge this gap, for example through training programs aimed at developing listening and communication skills.

For emotional support, those that had partners who were experiencing distress did not have a lot of emotional support available. These workers lacked the number of resources available to them and subsequently diversity. To understand this further, more information is needed to examine the impact of how having a partner and social support (particularly emotional support) availability and its role in supporting psychological well-being. For example, it is possible that having a partner alone may not be enough to provide the emotional support needed when workers are feeling distressed. To elaborate, there was one distressed participant who reported they did not rely on their partner to provide emotional support. Therefore, further understanding is needed to discover how distressed workers might access their emotional support if their partner is not able to provide support (or for some reason they are not able to utilize the partner in the first instance). This could be explored by examining how accessing a particular type of social support might differ for distressed vs non-distressed workers in a larger study. This could help to determine the extent of the importance of accessing different types of social capital for emotional support in relation to helping them with their psychological well-being.

In summary, by conducting the analysis of these egonets and exploring how the composition of personal networks in relation to their social capital and social support has provided an early indication that closeness and diversity for social capital are potentially important for supporting construction workers psychological well-being. Further, emotional support availability, particularly the strength/closeness of availability is also important, particularly for those workers who could not access emotional support from their partner or who had a lack of diversity in their network. This early evidence suggests that having emotional support available to access when needed from a range of different people is important for helping workers manage their psychological well-being and supports the existing literature^19-21,23,24. When there is an absence of emotional support and fewer people to access it when needed, this tends to have a negative impact on workers psychological well-being.

Limitations and future research: It is acknowledged that this study is a pilot and that the sample is a very small specific subset of civil construction workers recruited from a single company in Brisbane which is a limitation. It is also acknowledged that this may have impacted the findings as the analyses had very few distressed participants to conclude on any network differences for those with and without distress and should therefore be interpreted cautiously. Further, limited qualitative data was collected during the network analysis. This detail may have assisted in understanding the impact of these relationships better.

Future research should explore how accessing social support influences distress and seek to understand the circumstances in which a specific type of social capital is accessed when requiring social support. Further, the research could examine how accessing support impacts distress for those without a partner as there was not enough detail in this pilot study to determine the important relationships for accessing support, particularly emotional support. Alternatively, a qualitative study seeking to explore these relationships and their experiences in relation to the barriers and facilitators to seeking social support from their networks could be undertaken to provide more data on this important issue. There was also evidence to suggest the importance of the partner in accessing support, which could be followed up in a larger study seeking to understand this better.

CONCLUSION

The outcomes of this pilot study exploring social networks support the use of social network analysis for collecting information about social capital and social support. It also found that having more social capital along with increased diversity, as well as access to emotional support is associated with better psychological outcomes. This pilot study also provides early evidence that construction workers without distress tended to have more capital available to them, though it is unknown how the quality of these diverse relationships might impact their well-being. A larger study focusing on exploring these relationships further should be conducted to give further insight into the importance of social capital (total number and diversity) and how access to (or lack of access to) emotional support impacts psychological well-being. This pilot study also provides early evidence that suggests the provision of emotional support from different people is also important for psychological well-being. Different sources of social capital provide a specific type of support during times of need and access to those friends and in some cases their partner can impact psychological well-being. Despite these conclusions, the relationships along with how they might be accessed for social support (such as emotional support when needed) is complex. This pilot study exploring personal networks helps to better understand the needs of construction workers in relation to social support to help with minimizing their distress. This knowledge can contribute to understanding the psychological needs of construction workers and help to address their distress (and ultimately assist in reducing suicide) for the construction industry.

SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT

The primary contributions of this research indicate that for construction workers that having more social capital with increased diversity and access to good emotional support is the key to helping to minimize distress. This is useful information given that those with distress also appeared to recruit work colleagues as a source of capital to provide support. This means there is a potential opportunity for workplaces to provide mechanisms or interventions that can give workers the skills to provide effective emotional support (e.g., empathy and communication skills). This can help to improve psychological well-being for those who do not have access to social support or do not have appropriate social capital to provide this. In turn, by leveraging and implementing protective factors at work can help to minimize psychological distress and help to address high suicide rates currently experienced within the construction industry.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge Associate Professor Malcolm Alexander for the contribution of knowledge and feedback on social network analysis to this research project.