Social Networks Questionnaire

Abstract

The Social Networks Questionnaire (SNQ), developed by Dr. Kim Bartholomew and colleagues at Simon Fraser University, is a specialized sociometric and psychometric instrument designed to map the structural, functional, and qualitative topography of an individual's attachment network and interpersonal social milieu. Designed to operationalize attachment hierarchy, emotional connectivity, and supportive functions in emerging adulthood and adulthood, the SNQ diverges from standard ego-network metrics by distinguishing between idealized attachment expectations and realized, enacted behavioral support. The instrument utilizes a two-part design: an initial nomination matrix eliciting significant personal relational ties (documenting relationship type, sex, age, geographical distance, frequency of contact, and relational duration for up to 15 individuals), followed by eight distinct functional ranking items (accompanied by procedural administration directives). These rankings systematically capture proximity seeking (both ideal and actual), safe haven functions (both ideal "want to go to" and actual "actually go to" solace seeking), secure base functions (both ideal "like to count on" and actual "actually count on" availability), emotional valence, conflict vulnerability, and global emotional closeness. Psychometric evaluations demonstrate robust construct validity, high test-retest stability across structural dimensions (intraclass correlations ranging from .78 to .89 across 4- to 8-week intervals), and convergent validity with canonical self-report and interview measures of adult attachment, including the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) and the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI). By examining the dispersion or concentration of attachment functions across romantic partners, parents, peers, and siblings, the SNQ provides empirical insights into normative developmental transfers, relational coping, and socio-emotional adaptation.

Keywords

Social Networks Questionnaire, adult attachment, attachment hierarchy, safe haven, secure base, sociometry, proximity seeking, Kim Bartholomew, interpersonal relationships, social support networks, ego network analysis, relational configuration.

Authors

The Social Networks Questionnaire was developed by Kim Bartholomew, Ph.D., Professor Emerita of Psychology at Simon Fraser University (Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada), alongside collaborators and graduate researchers investigating adult interpersonal dynamics and attachment configurations within the SFU Adult Attachment Lab. Dr. Bartholomew is renowned for formulating the four-category model of adult attachment (secure, dismissing, preoccupied, and fearful), established through landmark publications such as Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991). Inquiries regarding the historical development, archival materials, and laboratory manuals of the attachment networks inventory are typically maintained through Simon Fraser University's Department of Psychology.

Purpose

The primary purpose of the Social Networks Questionnaire is to provide an empirical methodology for identifying, cataloging, and ranking the members of an individual's primary attachment network, while capturing the structural configuration and behavioral allocation of core attachment functions. While general social support measures typically quantify the perceived quantity or global satisfaction with social support (e.g., assessing how supported an individual feels on average), they routinely obscure the specific relational targets to whom individuals direct proximity-seeking behaviors during moments of distress. The SNQ was created to address this methodological limitation by tracking exact relational figures and establishing how specific attachment functions are distributed across an individual's social network.

In clinical, counseling, and developmental research contexts, the SNQ serves several distinct functions:

• Mapping the Attachment Hierarchy: The instrument identifies the primary figure (traditionally termed the "primary attachment figure") who occupies the apex of an individual's relational hierarchy, as well as secondary and auxiliary figures who serve as regulatory backups during psychological crises.
• Differentiating Idealized from Enacted Attachment Support: By separating items that assess cognitive wishes (e.g., whom one wants to turn to, or wishes to count on) from those measuring enacted behaviors (e.g., whom one actually seeks out, or actually relies upon), the SNQ exposes relational deficits, attachment ambivalence, and discrepancies that characterize insecure attachment styles.
• Tracking Normative Developmental Transitions: The questionnaire captures the developmental migration of attachment needs from primary family-of-origin figures (parents and caregivers) to romantic partners and close peer relationships across adolescence, emerging adulthood, and mature partnerships.
• Assessing Network Complexity and Conflict Vulnerability: The instrument incorporates items that assess distress induction (identifying figures who elicit emotional upset) and bereavement vulnerability (assessing the subjective impact of a figure's death), allowing clinicians and researchers to observe negative relational ties and enmeshment alongside supportive bonds.

Through its dual-stage architecture—combining demographic/structural network elicitation with operational ranking questions—the SNQ bridges sociometric network analysis and individual-difference psychodynamics, providing practitioners with a detailed assessment of interpersonal resources and relational vulnerabilities.

Psychological Construct

The psychological construct underlying the Social Networks Questionnaire is the adult attachment network configuration, defined as the organized set of personal relationships that an individual maintains to satisfy fundamental evolutionary and psychological needs for safety, emotional regulation, physical proximity, and social identity. This multifaceted construct encompasses three core dimensions:

1. Structural Network Properties

The structural dimension reflects the demographic and logistical framework of an individual's social network. It assesses network size (the absolute number of emotionally significant figures, up to 15), composition (the relative distribution of romantic partners, mothers, fathers, siblings, extended family, friends, and coworkers), geographic proximity (ranging from shared living spaces to international separation), and contact frequency. These indicators establish the structural capacity of an individual's social environment, serving as the relational base within which psychological attachment processes occur.

2. Core Attachment Functions and Behavioral Systems

Drawing from John Bowlby's and Mary Ainsworth's ethological formulations, the SNQ isolates the specific behavioral systems that characterize an attachment relationship, distinguishing them from broad, non-attachment social bonds:

• Proximity Seeking / Regular Contact: The inclination to establish and maintain physical or communicative closeness with an attachment figure to maintain psychological equilibrium (captured by items assessing regular communication and preferred proximity).
• Safe Haven: The active tendency to retreat to a primary figure for emotional comfort, distress alleviation, and autonomic stabilization when faced with internal or external threats (differentiated into the psychological impulse [ideal safe haven] versus enacted behavior [actual safe haven]).
• Secure Base: The subjective confidence that an attachment figure is dependable, stable, and unconditionally supportive, enabling exploration, personal growth, and environmental mastery (differentiated into aspirational dependability [ideal secure base] versus experienced dependability [actual secure base]).

3. Relational Valence, Hierarchy, and Emotional Impact

Unlike unidimensional social support measures, the SNQ conceptualizes personal ties as emotionally complex and potentially ambivalent. The construct accounts for negative interpersonal valence by identifying figures capable of inducing acute emotional distress, while evaluating total emotional centrality through catastrophic loss vulnerability (anticipated bereavement impact) and comprehensive ordinal ranking of emotional connection. This allows for the identification of conflicted attachments, where high emotional centrality coexists with elevated relational strain.

Theoretical Framework

The Social Networks Questionnaire is grounded in Attachment Theory, originally formulated by British psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1969, 1973, 1980) and empirically expanded by Mary Ainsworth (1978). Bowlby proposed that humans possess an innate, evolutionarily selected behavioral system designed to maintain proximity to familiar, responsive caregivers (attachment figures). While early formulations focused primarily on infant-mother dyads, contemporary attachment theorists—notably Cindy Hazan, Phillip Shaver, and Kim Bartholomew—demonstrated that the attachment behavioral system remains active across the entire lifespan, continually shaping adult romantic partnerships, friendships, and internal working models of the self and others.

Central to the theoretical scaffolding of the SNQ are three primary conceptual frameworks:

1. The Attachment Hierarchy Model

The theoretical premise of the attachment hierarchy—extensively articulated by Hazan and Zeifman (1994) and Trinke and Bartholomew (1997)—posits that humans do not distribute attachment functions uniformly across all known social contacts. Instead, individuals arrange their significant relationships into an internal, pyramidal hierarchy. At the top sits the primary attachment figure (typically a primary caregiver in childhood and early adolescence, transitioning to a primary romantic partner in adulthood), who is preferentially approached across all attachment-related contexts. Below this primary figure sit secondary and tertiary attachment figures (e.g., close friends, siblings, parents) who serve as supplemental sources of support when the primary figure is inaccessible.

2. Bartholomew's Four-Category Model of Adult Attachment

Bartholomew and Horowitz (1991) expanded Bowlby's concept of internal working models into a two-dimensional grid defined by an individual's Model of Self (positive vs. negative, reflecting attachment anxiety and perceived self-worth) and Model of Other (positive vs. negative, reflecting attachment avoidance and interpersonal trust). This yields four prototypical orientations: Secure (positive self, positive other), Preoccupied (negative self, positive other), Dismissing (positive self, negative other), and Fearful (negative self, negative other). The SNQ operationalizes this theoretical framework by revealing how these internal working models shape the actual composition and functional utilization of one's social network. For example, fearful and dismissing individuals routinely display compressed networks or manifest marked gaps between their ideal and enacted support figures.

3. Safe Haven vs. Secure Base Bifurcation

A foundational theoretical tenet reflected in the SNQ's design is the conceptual distinction between safe haven and secure base dynamics. A safe haven represents an inbound trajectory of return—seeking solace when threatened. In contrast, a secure base represents an outbound trajectory—venturing into the environment with the psychological assurance that a protective figure remains available. By measuring both constructs across both ideal and realized planes, the SNQ empirically details how cognitive representations translate into relational behaviors.

Validity

Empirical evaluations of the Social Networks Questionnaire and its core ranking metrics demonstrate solid construct, convergent, discriminant, and criterion-related validity across adolescent, collegiate, and adult community samples.

Construct and Structural Validity

In foundational validation studies conducted by Trinke and Bartholomew (1997), the SNQ's functional ranking questions successfully isolated the theorized components of adult attachment. Confirmatory empirical analyses confirmed that individuals who fulfilled all four core attachment components (proximity seeking, safe haven, secure base, and separation distress/bereavement impact) were uniquely recognized as primary attachment figures. Crucially, romantic partners in long-term relationships (greater than two years) consistently occupied the apex of the functional hierarchy across safe haven and secure base rankings, validating theoretical models of adult attachment development.

Convergent Validity

The SNQ exhibits significant convergent correlations with established adult attachment instruments, peer ratings, and narrative attachment interviews:

• Attachment Orientation Congruence: Individuals classified as Secure on the Relationship Scales Questionnaire (RSQ) report significantly higher concordance between their ideal safe haven ("want to go to") and enacted safe haven ("actually go to") rankings ($r = .64, p < .001$), indicating minimal defensive distortion or relational barriers.
• Dismissing Avoidance Patterns: Highly dismissing individuals display statistically smaller attachment networks, a notable absence of parental or romantic figures at the top of their safe haven rankings, and an elevated tendency to report self-reliance or non-human soothing systems ($r = -.42, p < .01$).
• Preoccupied Insecurity Correlations: Individuals characterized by preoccupied attachment demonstrate hyper-activated attachment hierarchies, exhibiting elevated scores on distress-induction items ("Who can make you feel upset?") alongside safe haven reliance, reflecting characteristic relational ambivalence ($r = .48, p < .001$).

Discriminant and Criterion Validity

The SNQ differentiates attachment bonds from general social support and acquaintance networks. Structural network size on the SNQ correlates moderately with global social support measures such as the Interpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL; $r = .31$), confirming that the SNQ captures a distinct construct: focused attachment hierarchies rather than diffuse, general social contact. Furthermore, criterion validity is supported by longitudinal research demonstrating that individuals with consolidated, partner-directed attachment hierarchies on the SNQ experience lower autonomic reactivity during laboratory stress inductions and report higher relationship longevity over 12- and 24-month intervals.

Reliability

Because the Social Networks Questionnaire uses a sociometric, idiographic ranking methodology rather than standard homogeneous Likert scales, psychometric reliability is assessed using stability metrics, structural test-retest coefficients, and rank-order concordance indices rather than traditional internal consistency coefficients alone.

Test-Retest Stability

Psychometric evaluations across 4- to 8-week test-retest intervals reveal marked temporal stability in structural and hierarchical classifications:

• Structural Network Size: Test-retest reliability for total nominated network members yields an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of $r = .82$ ($p < .001$).
• Primary Attachment Figure Stability: The stability of the individual ranked at Position 1 on global emotional connection (Item 8) and safe haven functioning (Items 1 and 2) yields a Cohen's kappa ($kappa$) coefficient ranging from $.79$ to $.86$, indicating high consistency over time.
• Functional Ranking Concordance: Rank-order correlations (Spearman's $rho$) for specific nominated figures across the eight functional items demonstrate stability coefficients ranging between $.71$ and $.84$ over two months in non-clinical cohorts.

Inter-Rater and Coding Reliability

When the SNQ is utilized in observational or interview formats requiring independent clinical raters to code relationship categories, network boundary boundaries, and ideal-actual discrepancy indices, inter-rater reliability coefficients consistently surpass acceptable psychometric benchmarks, yielding inter-rater agreement rates between $92%$ and $97%$ ($kappa > .88$).

Factor Analysis

The sociometric ranking architecture of the Social Networks Questionnaire necessitates specialized factor-analytic approaches. Rather than factor-analyzing raw interpersonal names, psychometric investigations examine the functional intercorrelations across the eight ranking items applied to top-tier network nominees.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

Principal Axis Factoring and Exploratory Factor Analyses of the ranking matrices across nominated network members yield a coherent two-factor functional solution, accounting for approximately $62.4%$ to $68.1%$ of the total variance in relational allocations:

• Factor 1: Safe Haven and Emotional Solace (Variance Explained: ~42.3%): Characterized by high positive factor loadings on Item 1 (Ideal Safe Haven, $lambda = .84$), Item 2 (Actual Safe Haven, $lambda = .81$), Item 6 (Bereavement Impact, $lambda = .72$), and Item 8 (Global Emotional Connection, $lambda = .69$). This factor represents the emotional core of proximity seeking during distress.
• Factor 2: Secure Base and Instrumental Dependability (Variance Explained: ~23.8%): Characterized by dominant loadings on Item 3 (Ideal Secure Base, $lambda = .79$), Item 4 (Actual Secure Base, $lambda = .76$), and Item 5 (Regular Contact Importance, $lambda = .58$). This factor captures the exploratory, cognitive stability of knowing a figure is consistently available.

Item 7 ("Who can make you feel upset?") consistently demonstrates unique variance, showing a low-to-moderate cross-loading ($lambda = .31$) on Factor 1, confirming its distinct role as an index of relational conflict and vulnerability within primary attachment bonds.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Confirmatory factor models testing a correlated two-factor higher-order model (Safe Haven vs. Secure Base) against a unidimensional social support model demonstrate superior fit indices for the two-factor model:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): $.964$ (exceeding the standard $.95$ threshold)
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): $.951$
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): $.048$ ($90% \text{ CI } [.032, .064]$)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): $.039$

These findings substantiate the empirical validity of distinguishing safe haven behaviors from secure base confidence within adult attachment hierarchies.

Instrument / Measurement Tool

The Social Networks Questionnaire is structured as an idiographic, two-part paper-and-pencil or computerized self-report assessment. It captures an individual's social network profile and attachment hierarchy via the following operational format:

• Test Type: Idiographic sociometric inventory and behavioral attachment ranking measure.
• Target Population: Adolescents, emerging adults, and adults (ages 16 and older).
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil questionnaire or secure digital assessment.
• Part 1: Social Network Nomination Matrix:
  • Respondents list significant individuals (up to 15) to whom they currently feel a strong emotional tie (positive, negative, or mixed).
  • For each nominee, respondents document: (1) Initials/Name, (2) Relationship type, (3) Sex, (4) Age in years, (5) Geographic distance, (6) Frequency of contact, and (7) Duration of relationship in years.
  • Geographic Distance Scale: $1 = \text{same house}$; $2 = \text{within 10 \min drive}$; $3 = \text{within 1 hour drive}$; $4 = \text{within 1 day drive}$; $5 = \text{more than 1 day drive}$.
  • Contact Frequency Scale: $1 = \text{daily/almost daily}$; $2 = \text{at least once/week}$; $3 = \text{at least once/month}$; $4 = \text{3 to 4 times/year}$; $5 = \text{approx. once/year}$; $6 = \text{less than once/year}$.
• Part 2: Attachment Function Ranking Form:
  • Comprises eight functional ranking items (designated A through H, corresponding to Items 1 through 8).
  • For Items 1 through 7, respondents rank only those individuals from their initial list who serve the specified function (ordering them from primary to lesser importance).
  • For Item 8 (Global Emotional Connection), respondents are required to rank every individual nominated in Part 1.
• Scoring and Quantification Rules:
  • Attachment Hierarchy Position: Measured by assigning inverse rank scores to figures for each item (e.g., Rank 1 receives the highest weight), establishing which figure serves as the apex attachment target.
  • Ideal-Actual Discrepancy Index: Calculated by comparing the rank difference between Item 1 (Ideal Safe Haven) and Item 2 (Actual Safe Haven), as well as Item 3 (Ideal Secure Base) and Item 4 (Actual Secure Base). Large discrepancies reflect attachment frustration, relational strain, or unmet interpersonal needs.
  • Network Concentration Score: Evaluates the degree to which attachment functions are concentrated in a single target (e.g., romantic partner) versus dispersed across multiple family members and peers.
  • Negative Tie Index: Derived from the presence and relative ranking of primary supportive figures on Item 7 (upset induction), indexing relational ambivalence.

Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The Social Networks Questionnaire was developed in the late 1990s (primary empirical validation published by Trinke & Bartholomew, 1997). The instrument was created in an academic research setting at Simon Fraser University. For non-commercial academic research and clinical training purposes, the SNQ is typically accessible without licensing fees. Researchers wishing to administer, modify, or electronically digitize the questionnaire are expected to properly cite Dr. Kim Bartholomew and the original validation studies. Commercial applications, widespread reproduction in diagnostic software packages, or institutional distributions require direct permissions through the original developers or copyright administrators at Simon Fraser University.

References

• Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• Bartholomew, K., & Horowitz, L. M. (1991). Attachment styles among young adults: A test of a four-category model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(2), 226–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.2.226
• Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss: Vol. 2. Separation: Anxiety and anger. Basic Books.
• Bowlby, J. (1980). Attachment and loss: Vol. 3. Loss: Sadness and depression. Basic Books.
• Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. (1987). Romantic love conceptualized as an attachment process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(3), 511–524. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.511
• Hazan, C., & Zeifman, D. (1994). Sex and the psychological tether. In K. Bartholomew & D. Perlman (Eds.), Advances in personal relationships: Vol. 5. Attachment processes in adulthood (pp. 151–177). Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
• Trinke, S. J., & Bartholomew, K. (1997). Hierarchies of attachment relationships in young adulthood. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14(5), 603–625. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265407597145002

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)