Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 414

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 48 of the 48 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Social Network Type and Subjective Well-being in a National Sample of Older Americans

Open access
Litwin, H., Shiovitz-Ezra, S.·2011·The Gerontologist
DOI 10.1093/geront/gnq094
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

PURPOSE: The study considers the social networks of older Americans, a population for whom there have been few studies of social network type. It also examines associations between network types and well-being indicators: loneliness, anxiety, and happiness. DESIGN AND METHODS: A subsample of persons aged 65 years and older from the first wave of the National Social Life, Health, and Aging Project was employed (N = 1,462). We applied K-means cluster analysis to derive social network types using 7 criterion variables. In the multivariate stage, the well-being outcomes were regressed on the network type construct and on background and health characteristics by means of logistic regression. RESULTS: Five social network types were derived: "diverse," "friend," "congregant," "family," and "restricted." Social network type was found to be associated with each of the well-being indicators after adjusting for demographic and health confounders. Respondents embedded in network types characterized by greater social capital tended to exhibit better well-being in terms of less loneliness, less anxiety, and greater happiness. IMPLICATIONS: Knowledge about differing network types should make gerontological practitioners more aware of the varying interpersonal milieus in which older people function. Adopting network type assessment as an integral part of intake procedures and tracing network shifts over time can serve as a basis for risk assessment as well as a means for determining the efficacy of interventions.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/geront/gnq094

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 48 references

Cited by

See all 414

Metadata

Authors
Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S.
Venue
The Gerontologist
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2010-11-19
Volume
51
Issue
3
Pages
379-388
ISSN
  • 0016-9013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1758-5341
DOI
10.1093/geront/gnq094
OpenAlex
W2122146305
Cited by
414
References
48
FWCI
12.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Social Network Type and Subjective Well-being in a National Sample of Older Americans. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1093/geront/gnq094
The paper
Litwin, H., & Shiovitz-Ezra, S. (2011). Social Network Type and Subjective Well-being in a National Sample of Older Americans. The Gerontologist. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnq094

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.