Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Social Networks
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/socnet

Ask and you shall receive: Social network contacts’ provision of help
during the job search
Lindsey Trimble O’Connor ∗
California State University Channel Islands, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Social network contacts—the people who are asked to help with others’ job searches—are key players
Received 21 January 2013 in the job networking process. Before job seekers can become employed with the help social networks,
Received in revised form 27 May 2013 contacts must first be able and willing to share the social resources job seekers need for their search.
Accepted 25 July 2013
Little is known about the factors that affect contacts’ ability and willingness to do this. Analyses of a
unique dataset of contacts show that they typically have access to resources and help job seekers by
Keywords:
sharing them. Still, contacts are better able to help when they are male, employed, and better educated
Social capital access/mobilization
than job seekers. They are more willing to help when they perceive job seekers to be “good” workers.
Job searching
Inequality
In identifying the conditions in which contacts provide social resources, this study illustrates how social
networks are a productive job search strategy for some, but not all, job seekers.
© 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Researchers have long known that a primary way people
search for and find work is by asking the members of their social
network—their friends, family members, neighbors, coworkers,
acquaintances—for help with their job searches (Granovetter, 1995;
Ioannides and Loury, 2004; Marsden and Gorman, 2001). Social net-
work connections provide job seekers with beneficial resources,
or social capital, making “networked” job seekers more competi-
tive job applicants than job seekers who hear about jobs through
formal methods (e.g., newspaper advertisements, public or private
employment agencies, job advertisements on websites, etc.) or who
directly apply for jobs (Lin, 1999; Portes, 1998; but see Mouw,
2003).
What is less clear is how job seekers activate resources for their
job searches. Before job seekers become employed with the help of
their social network contacts, they first “access” social capital and
“mobilize” it for their searches (Lin, 1999, 2001). In other words, job
seekers must seek out contacts who possess the kinds of resources
they need for their job search and convince them to share those
resources.1 Relatively little is known about how job seekers do this,
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 (850) 437 3873.
E-mail address: lindsey.oconnor@csuci.edu
1
Many job seekers are informally recruited into new jobs by social network con-
tacts (for example see, McDonald, 2011; McDonald et al., 2009). Referred to as
“non-searching,” this process occurs when people find work through the receipt
of unsolicited job-related help from contacts. In this paper, I focus solely on “active
searching”—situations in which job seekers solicit help from their social network
contacts.
yet, it is safe to assume that some job seekers do not receive help
from contacts when they ask for it. For example, some contacts
may be unable to help job seekers with their search and some may
choose not to (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013; Lin, 2001; Newman, 1999;
Royster, 2003; Smith, 2005, 2007, 2010). Job seekers who activate
social capital through their networks are likely to have more pro-
ductive searches than job seekers who are unable to—they may
spend less time, energy, and resources searching and becoming
employed than job seekers whose networks are unable or unwilling
to help with their searches. In short, contacts control access to ben-
eficial social capital and have the “power” to help job seekers have
a successful search, making them an important topic of empirical
investigation (Trimble et al., 2013).
Scholars know little about the part contacts play in the job
search because of data collection and analysis methods which over-
look or simplify their role. Most research on social networks and
the job search focuses on workers either after they have been
referred by contacts to jobs (for example, see Fernandez et al.,
2000; Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2006; Fernandez and Sosa,
2005; Petersen et al., 2000), or after they found their jobs with
the help of social network contacts (for example, see Drentea,
1998; Elliott, 1999, 2001; Green et al., 1999; Hanson and Pratt,
1991; Kmec and Trimble, 2009; Leicht and Marx, 1997; Mencken
and Winfield, 2000; Smith, 2000; Stainback, 2008; Straits, 1998).
These approaches pose two significant and inter-related problems
for understanding contacts’ role in the job search. First, by focus-
ing on job seekers who have already received assistance from
social network contacts, researchers know little about the rate at
which contacts are asked to help job seekers and the factors that
affect whether contacts actually help (Trimble et al., 2013). This is

0378-8733/$ – see front matter © 2013 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2013.07.005
594 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603

exacerbated by researchers’ tendency to study job seekers rather most contacts help with job searches when asked. Still, I find that
than contacts directly (but see Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013; Smith, male contacts are better able to help than female, employed con-
2005, 2007, 2010) because job seekers may not be aware of the tacts are better able to help than unemployed, and contacts with
reasons contacts do or do not help them. Second, by focusing on more education than job seekers are better able to help than con-
“successful” job seekers—those who find jobs with the help of tacts with less. I also find that contacts are better able to help when
contacts—scholars have little understanding of the job seekers who they are familiar with job seekers’ work qualifications than when
are unable to access and mobilize social capital and the extent to they are unfamiliar, and more willing to help when they perceive
which an inability to access and mobilize social capital is a prob- job seekers to be “good” workers (i.e., having a good work ethic and
lem that some groups (i.e., racial/ethnic minorities, women, or being trustworthy) than when contacts perceive job seekers to be
the unemployed) may confront more than others (Trimble et al., “bad” (having a poor work ethic and being untrustworthy). I con-
2013). clude with a discussion of the implications of my findings for the
In this paper, I take a unique approach to studying social capital social capital, job search, and labor market inequality literatures
access and mobilization for a job search. Rather than examine social and provide suggestions for future research.
network contact use from the perspective of job seekers, I study
social network contacts directly to understand the factors that
1.1. Social capital access and mobilization
affect their provision of social capital for others’ job searches. This
paper builds on the growing body of literature on social network
About half of all jobs are found with the help of a social network
contacts’ provision of help (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013; Newman,
connection (Granovetter, 1995; Marsden and Gorman, 2001), mak-
1999; Royster, 2003; Smith, 2005, 2007, 2010) in three important
ing contact use one of the most common job search strategies. Social
ways. First, most studies of contacts’ provision of help with a job
network contacts are thought to be beneficial for the job search
search use qualitative methods to examine social capital activation
because they share useful information about job opportunities and
among low-income, urban, or minority contacts (Newman, 1999;
employers, use their work-related influence to sway hiring deci-
Royster, 2003; Smith, 2005, 2007, 2010) or entry-level white-collar
sions, and use their own reputations to “signal” to employers that
workers (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013). These job seekers are looking
job seekers will be good hires (Bian, 1997; Fernandez and Weinberg,
for work in unique labor markets and their contacts may use a
1997; Lin, 1999, 2001; Marsden and Gorman, 2001; Portes, 1998;
different set of criteria than the general population when decid-
Seibert et al., 2001; Yakubovich, 2005).
ing if and how to help. In this paper, I draw on quantitative data
Yet, in order for network use to result in employment, social cap-
from a large, representative sample of contacts living in Washing-
ital has to first be “accessed and/or mobilized in purposive action”
ton State. This research is the first to my knowledge to identify
by job seekers (Lin, 2001, p. 29). Job seekers gain access to social cap-
the extent to which a representative sample of contacts help job
ital by being involved in particular networks, so that the resources
seekers with their searches and the conditions in which they
embedded in those networks are that individual’s accessed capital
do so.
(Lin, 1999, 2001). Social capital is mobilized when job seekers make
Second, previous research on the factors affecting contact help
use of contacts’ social resources for instrumental action.
during a job search focused on their provision of unsolicited help
Job seekers’ access and mobilization of social capital is depend-
to “non-searchers” (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013) or do not discern
ent on the extent and diversity of contacts’ resources and their
between the provision of solicited and unsolicited help (Newman,
provision of those resources. Some contacts may not have the
1999; Smith, 2005, 2007, 2010). In contrast, this paper focuses
resources job seekers need for their searches because their pos-
exclusively on active job seekers—those who directly seek out
itions within social structures and institutions limit their access to
the assistance of their social network contacts and who consti-
social capital (Lin, 2001, p.100). Other contacts may have access to
tute about 40 percent of workers who find their jobs with the
resources but decide not to share them (e.g., a contact may decline
help of network contacts (Granovetter, 1995). Contacts have dis-
to help a job seeker because he does not feel she would be a good
tinct roles in the active and non-search processes (Elliott, 2000)
“fit” for a job) (Lin, 1999, 2001). In other words, being embedded
and job seekers are likely to face unique challenges in activating
in social networks with rich social capital does not equate to being
social capital in each situation. In an active search, for example, job
able to use that capital for a job search because contacts actively
seekers approach contacts with requests for help and so they may
decide with whom and under what conditions they will share their
encounter contacts who are unable or unwilling to help them. In
resources (Lin, 1999, 2001; Marin, 2007, 2012; Smith, 2005, 2007,
the non-search process, contacts initiate the sharing of resources
2010). For job seekers to access and mobilize social capital for a
and are unlikely to reach out to a job seeker unless they are able and
job search, they must seek out the help of contacts who are both
willing to help. Contacts’ roles in each process warrant an explo-
able and willing to share their social resources. In the following sec-
ration of the ways in which the factors that affect provision of help
tion, I describe three sets of factors that affect contacts’ ability and
might differ in each situation.
willingness to help job seekers with their searches.
Finally, most studies of social network contacts focus on social
capital mobilization—that is, whether contacts choose to share
their resources with job seekers (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013; Smith, 1.2. Ability to help with a job search
2005, 2007, 2010). However, job seekers’ success with a job search
depends on accessing and mobilizing contacts’ social capital (Lin, 1.2.1. Contact status
1999, 2001), and so I distinguish between the factors that affect Contacts’ ability to help with a job search depends, in part, on
each outcome. This distinction is particularly important for under- their status. Status is directly linked to access to social resources.
standing how social network contact use perpetuates labor market Social resource theory (SRT) suggests that contacts who are high
inequality because some groups of job seekers (e.g., minorities or in status have larger and more diverse social networks than con-
women) may face distinct barriers in accessing and mobilizing tacts who are low in status (Campbell et al., 1986; Marsden, 1987;
social capital for their searches. Marsden and Hurlbert, 1988; McPherson et al., 2001, 2006; Lin,
To study contacts’ provision of help, I use unique data I col- 1999, 2000), meaning that high status contacts not only have more
lected from a random sample of approximately 350 contacts living social resources which they can share with job seekers but a greater
in Washington State about the last time someone sought their help variety of them compared to low status contacts (Lin, 1999, 2000,
with a job search, hereafter the “job seeker.” My analyses show that 2001; Marsden and Hurlbert, 1988). SRT implies that high status
 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
contacts are in a better position to know how to help job seekers
than low status contacts (Lin, 1999; Lin et al., 1981; Marin, 2013).
Indeed, research on job seekers’ use of social networks sug-
gests that high status contacts may be better able to help job
seekers with their searches than low status contacts. For exam-
ple, Wilson (1996) showed that economically disadvantaged,
urban black men—whose networks consisted of other low-income
blacks—lacked the necessary connections to resourceful contacts
who could provide information about job opportunities or influ-
ence over hiring decisions. Other empirical work has found that
racial/ethnic minorities and women have fewer high status net-
work members compared with white men, and that this deficit
helps explain why social network use during the job search is less
beneficial for minorities and women than white men (Kasinitz and
Rosenberg, 1996; Marsden and Gorman, 2001; McGuire, 2000; Lin,
2001; Rankin and Quane, 2000; Royster, 2003; Tigges et al., 1998,
but see Fernandez and Fernandez-Mateo, 2006; Newman, 1999).
Because racial/ethnic minorities and women tend to rely on other
minorities and women for help with their searches (Braddock and
McPartland, 1987; Falcón and Melendez, 2001; Leicht and Marx,
1997; McDonald, 2011; Mencken and Winfield, 2000; Stainback,
2008; Straits, 1998), this research suggests that minorities and
women are less likely to have the ability to help with a job search
than white men.
Other indicators of status, including employment, education,
and age, are also likely to affect contacts’ ability to help with a job
search. Employed contacts may be more likely than unemployed
contacts to maintain work-related relationships (e.g., coworkers,
supervisors) from whom they can learn about job opportunities,
and to come across beneficial resources through routine inter-
actions at work. Contacts with high levels of education typically
have larger and more diverse networks (Marsden, 1987; McPherson
et al., 2001, 2006) and have greater levels of social capital than con-
tacts with low levels of education (Lin, 2001), putting them in good
position to help with others’ job searches. Finally, older individuals
tend to have more social capital than younger individuals, partic-
ularly social capital from work-related ties (McDonald and Mair,
2010). For this reason, older individuals may be better able to help
with a job search. I use these five markers of a contact’s status—race,
gender, employment status, education level, and age—to test the
following hypothesis:
H1 . High status contacts are better able to help with job seekers’
searches than low status contacts.
1.2.2. Contact-job seeker relationship
Contacts’ ability to provide the resources job seekers need also
depends on the relationships they share with job seekers, specif-
ically the strength of their connections and their degree of social
similarity with job seekers. Strong ties might be better able to help
when asked than weak ties for two reasons. First, contacts who
are strongly tied to job seekers will better know how to help than
weak ties because they are likely to be familiar with job seekers’
work qualifications. As a result, strong ties will have a better under-
standing of job seekers’ skills and the types of jobs at which they
would be successful than weak ties (Marin, 2007, 2012). For exam-
ple, imagine a contact is approached by a job seeker who formerly
worked as a librarian. Knowing this job seeker’s work history as
a librarian might trigger the contact’s memory of a job advertise-
ment she recently saw for a position at a bookstore. Had the contact
not known about this job seekers’ work experience, she might not
have thought to share information about this job opening. In short,
knowing something about job seekers is likely to help contacts
remember specific, relevant resources which they can then share
with the job seeker, and to help them decide whether they possess
resources that might be of use to job seekers.
595
Second, contacts may hesitate to help weakly tied job seek-
ers because they do not want to provide unwanted or ill-matched
resources. Marin’s (2007, 2012) research on the factors that affect
whether contacts share unsolicited job leads showed that contacts
were reluctant to pass along job information for fear of seem-
ing intrusive. As a result, contacts tended to share job leads with
strong ties—people whose qualifications and interests were well-
known and for whom they knew the job information would be
welcome (Marin, 2007, 2012). Contacts may feel similarly when
approached by job seekers with whom they share a weak connec-
tion, and opt to convey an inability to help. I use four measures
of tie strength—contacts’ familiarity with job seekers’ work qua-
lifications, contacts’ closeness to job seekers, the length of their
relationship, and history of exchanging favors—to test the following
hypothesize:
H2 . Contacts with strong ties to job seekers are better able to help
than contacts with weak ties.
Contacts who are socially similar to job seekers may also be more
likely to know how to help than contacts who are socially dissim-
ilar. This is because socially similar contacts likely have access to
the particular kinds of resources (i.e., job information and influ-
ence) job seekers need for their search by virtue of their shared
social structural location. Differences in the labor force participa-
tion rates of particular groups, sex and race/ethnic segregation in
the labor market, and the experience and education requirements
of jobs may limit the extent of resources contacts have access to,
in turn, limiting their ability to help with socially dissimilar job
seekers’ searches. In other words, the more socially dissimilar two
individuals are, the less likely they are to have the resources needed
to help one another with a job search. In this analysis, I examine the
degree of social similarity between contacts and job seekers using
four characteristics: race/ethnicity, gender, age, and education. I
hypothesize:
H3 . Contacts who are socially similar to job seekers are better able
to help than contacts who are socially dissimilar.
1.3. Willingness to help with a job search
1.3.1. Contact-job seeker relationship
Contacts’ relationships with job seekers also affect whether con-
tacts are willing to help with a job search. Because contacts must
devote their own time and effort to help job seekers (Fernandez
and Castilla, 2001; Lin, 2001; Royster, 2003; Smith, 2005, 2007),
interpersonal relationships are an important pre-determinant of
contacts’ willingness to help. Contacts are unlikely to exert a
great deal of effort helping job seekers with whom they are
only weakly tied (Lin, 2001), or to whom they do not feel obli-
gated.
In addition to the time and effort contacts exert on behalf of
job seekers, tie strength affects whether contacts will want to help.
Contacts who are familiar with and feel close to job seekers may be
more motivated or obliged to help, or feel more invested in ensuring
they find work (Bian, 1997; Granovetter, 1982; Yakubovich, 2005).
Contacts may also be more willing to assist when job seekers have
assisted them in the past, or when they expect that job seekers
will assist them in the future because of feelings of expected or
real mutual obligation, a characteristic of strong ties (Bian, 1994,
1997; Granovetter, 1985; Smith, 2007). Typically, close ties have a
history of cooperation which fosters trust and further cooperation
(Burt, 2001). As such, I hypothesize:
H4 . Contacts with strong ties to job seekers are more willing to
help than contacts with weak ties.
596 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
Contacts might also be more willing to help if they are socially
similar to job seekers. Homophily creates feelings of obligation
(Fiske, 1998; Reskin, 2000), and so contacts may feel more com-
pelled to help socially similar job seekers than dissimilar job seekers
because of the affinity they feel toward them. Moreover, because
individuals feel “at ease” with socially similar others (Fiske, 1998;
Reskin, 2000), they may feel more comfortable providing their
assistance to job seekers who are socially similar than dissimilar
(Marin, 2012). Empirical evidence suggests that one type of social
similarity is an important determinant for whether contacts “put
in a good word for job seekers”—contacts are more likely to vouch
for job seekers if they are the same gender than if they are different
(McDonald, 2011). I expect:
H5 . Contacts who are socially similar to job seekers are more
willing to help than contacts who are socially dissimilar.
1.3.2. Job seekers’ status as a worker
Finally, contacts’ assessments of job seekers’ work-related
behaviors also affect their willingness to help (Smith, 2005, 2007).
Contacts’ perceptions of a job seeker affect their judgment of the
worker, the kinds of jobs that he or she could potentially work,
whether the job seeker is worth the investment, and subsequently
whether the contact is willing to help. For example, Smith (2005,
2007) found that urban, black contacts were unwilling to help job
seekers with their searches because they were afraid of hurting
their own reputations by helping job seekers who exhibited “poor
worker” qualities (e.g., a lack of motivation, irresponsibility, or a
tendency toward delinquency). Smith (2005, 2007, 2010) suggests
that contacts consider their perception of job seekers’ work ethic
and trustworthiness when deciding to help.
Similarly, contacts might be more willing to help job seek-
ers who are employed when they ask for help because holding
down a job indicates a certain level of trustworthiness (Smith,
2005). In other words, contacts know that job seekers were “good
enough” workers to get and keep their current jobs. Contacts
might also be more willing to help white, male job seekers than
minority or female job seekers because of stereotypes suggesting
that white men are committed and competent workers (Correll
and Ridgeway, 2006; Ridgeway and Correll, 2004). In sum, these
characteristics—work ethic, trustworthiness, employment status,
race/ethnicity, and gender—can signal to contacts that job seek-
ers are serious, committed to work, and deserving of the help.
As a result, contacts’ investments are less risky because they
can be more certain that job seekers will not tarnish their rep-
utations and that they will not be wasting their investment on
an “undeserving” job seeker (Sherman, 2009; Smith, 2005). I
hypothesize:
H6 . Contacts who perceive job seekers as “good” workers are more
willing to help than contacts who perceive job seekers as “bad”
workers.
2. Data and measures
2.1. Data
To test these hypotheses, I draw on data I collected from
approximately 350 social network contacts. In 2010, I mailed a
questionnaire to a stratified, random sample of 1850 Washing-
ton State households.2 In the questionnaire, I asked respondents
to share their views on a variety of topics including the state of the
2
The questionnaire was an 11-page (bi-folded on three sheets of 8.5 × 14 paper),
62-item paper questionnaire titled “How do people look for work? An effort to under-
stand how Washington residents help people find jobs.”
economy, perceptions about the possibility of finding work, and
whether respondents had been asked to help with someone else’s
job search in the three years preceding the survey. If respondents
were recently asked for help, I asked them to describe the last time
someone sought their help, elaborating on the type(s) of help they
were asked for, whether they in fact provided the help, their rela-
tionship with the person who last asked for help, and that person’s
demographic characteristics.3 I also asked respondents to provide
their demographic information, both at the time of survey comple-
tion and, in the case of non-constant attributes (e.g., age), when they
were last asked for help. I refer to the data I collected from these
questionnaires as the Social Networks and Employment Assistance
Survey (SNEAS).
To select a sample, I contracted a private vendor who drew
a list of addresses from the United States Postal Service (USPS)
delivery sequence file (DSF), an electronic list of virtually all res-
idential and commercial addresses to which the USPS delivers mail
(Dillman et al., 2009; Link et al., 2008).4 To ensure a random sam-
ple of individuals within households were selected to complete
the questionnaire, I instructed the adult (age 18 years or older)
in the household with the most recent birthday to complete the
questionnaire.
I administered the SNEAS questionnaire using the tailored
design method (TDM) (Dillman et al., 2009). I contacted each
household with four separate mailings in order to increase sur-
vey response (Dillman et al., 2009). The first mailing consisted
of a pre-notice letter which informed households that they had
been selected to take part in a survey about how people look for
work. The second mailing included a cover letter, the question-
naire, a $2.00 cash incentive, and a business reply envelope. One
week after mailing the questionnaire packet, I mailed a postcard
to all households selected for the sample. I used the postcard to
thank households that had already completed the questionnaire
and to remind non-responders to do so. Nearly one month after
I mailed the first questionnaire packet, I mailed non-responders
a replacement questionnaire packet. The replacement question-
naire packet was similar in content to the first; it included a
cover letter, a replacement questionnaire, and a business reply
3
Some requests for help are more memorable than others (e.g., a request for an
introduction to a hiring manager versus a request to review a résumé), and contacts
might be more likely to remember situations in which they were able to help or
actually provided help to job seekers than when they could not or did not provide
help. To ensure respondents recalled the last person who asked for their help, I
asked respondents whether anyone sought nine different types of common job-
related help from them in the three years preceding the survey. These nine types
of help included situations in which someone asked respondents to: (1) tell him or
her about available job opportunities, (2) talk with an employer on his or her behalf,
(3) share information about a specific job or employer, (4) give advice about how to
look for or apply for a job, (5) hire him or her, (6) be a reference or provide a formal
recommendation, (7) give advice on how to dress or how to act around an employer,
(8) introduce him or her to someone who could help with their job search, and (9)
pick up or drop off a job application for him or her. By listing several types of job-
related help, I hoped to “jog” respondents’ memory so that they remembered the last
person who asked for their help with a job search—regardless of how significant the
request for help might have been, whether they were able to or had actually provided
the help, or whether the job seeker received an offer as a result of their request for
help. Results from 15 cognitive interviews I conducted to pre-test the questionnaire
suggested that respondents had no trouble remembering the last person who sought
their help.
4
I stratified the sampling frame by urbanicity in order to make meaningful
comparisons between urban and rural areas in Washington State, although these
comparisons are not the focus of this paper. Half of the addresses were selected
from census blocks considered “urban” in the year 2000 (n = 925), and half were
selected from “rural” blocks (n = 925). The Census considers a block to be “urban” if
it has a population density of over 1000 people per square mile or if it is adjacent to
a block with a population density of 1000 people per square mile and has a density
of 500 people per square mile. All census blocks that do not fit these criteria are
considered rural (United States Bureau of the Census, 2000).
 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
envelope.5 Using this method, I received 577 completed question-
naires and achieved a response rate of 34.4 percent.6
I compared the gender, age, race/ethnic composition, and
employment status of the SNEAS sample with the Washington State
population to establish data representativeness (see Appendix A).
The SNEAS sample has significantly more women, older people,
and whites than the State of Washington. To ensure that my sam-
ple approximates the Washington State population, I created a
weight that adjusts for respondents’ gender, age, and urban/rural
status using the “raking” procedure in Stata.7 The raking procedure,
also called “sample balancing,” is ideal when population totals are
unavailable for the variables one wants to weight by (Battaglia et al.,
2004). For example, to adjust the sample for respondents’ gender,
age, and urban/rural status, one would need to know the total popu-
lations for each cell (e.g., the total population of rural women age 65
and older). The raking procedure adjusts the sample one variable
at a time to match the populations’ proportions (Battaglia et al.,
2004).8
2.2. Dependent variables
2.2.1. Ability to help with a job search
The first outcome of interest measures contacts’ ability to help
with job seekers’ searches. I created this variable by drawing on
the responses to three questionnaire items. The questionnaire first
asked contacts whether job seekers requested three types of job-
related help: (1) information about job opportunities/openings, (2)
information about a job or employer (e.g., information about a
work organization’s culture/environment), and (3) an introduction
to someone who could help with their job search. After establishing
whether job seekers sought these three types of help, the question-
naire then asked contacts if they knew how to provide the help (e.g.,
did contacts know of any job opportunities they could share with
job seekers?). Contacts were coded “1” if they knew how to provide
at least one type of help that the job seeker needed (e.g., they knew
of at least one job opportunity that they could share with the job
seeker). I coded contacts who were asked for a particular type of
help, but did not know how to provide it as “0.”9
2.2.2. Willingness to help with a search
The second outcome of interest, contacts’ willingness to help,
measures whether contacts actually provided the help that job
seekers sought. To create this outcome variable, I drew on a series
of questions about whether job seekers sought four types of help
5
Due to budget limitations, 500 of the 1850 households received two mailings
(the questionnaire mailing including a $1.00 incentive instead of $2.00, and a post-
card) instead of four.
6 11
I calculated this response rate using AAPOR’s Standard Definitions (American
Association for Public Opinion Research, 2010) response rate formula #6.
7
I opted to not weight the data for respondents’ race/ethnicity because of the
small number of racial/ethnic minority contacts in the SNEAS dataset. With so few
minorities, and with adjusting for respondents’ sex, age, and urban/rural status, I did
not have enough respondents in each cell to weight for respondents’ race/ethnicity
as well.
8
Recall, that I instructed household members with the most recent birthday to
complete the questionnaire. Typically, researchers who use a within-household
sampling strategy estimate weights that adjust for the probability of selection at
the within-household level (see Link et al., 2008). Link et al. (2008), for example,
calculate these weights using the total number of adults per household. Since I did
not collect this information in my questionnaire, I do not adjust the SNEAS data in
this way.
9
Contacts were only coded as unable to help if they did not know how to provide
any of the help that job seekers wanted. For example, if a job seeker asked the
respondent for information about a job opportunity and an introduction to someone
who could help with their search and the respondent was able to help in at least
one of these ways, I coded him or her as knowing how to help with the job search.
If the job seeker did not know how to provide either of these types of help, then she
or he is coded as being unable to help.
597
from contacts: (1) information about job opportunities/openings,
(2) information about a job or employer, (3) providing an intro-
duction, or (4) providing a reference or letter of recommendation.
Contacts who knew how to help or were asked to provide a refer-
ence are coded “1” if contacts provided all of the help job seekers
sought. I coded contacts who were asked for help, but did not
provide it as “0.” Those contacts who were unable to help with
job seekers’ searches are coded as missing for this variable. In other
words, only contacts who knew how to provide the help job seekers
needed have values for this variable.10,11
2.3. Independent variables
2.3.1. Contact’s status
The first set of independent variables measure contacts’ sta-
tus, a proxy for their access to social resources. Models include
measures of contacts’ race/ethnicity and gender because ascrip-
tive labor market inequality limits minorities and women’s access
to resources at work which could affect their ability to share
job-related resources (England, 2010; Reskin, 1993; Smith, 2002;
Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993). Contacts’ race/ethnicity is a dichotomous
variable coded “1” when contacts were racial/ethnic minorities and
“0” when white. Due to the small sample of racial/ethnic minori-
ties in the SNEAS dataset, I coded respondents as minorities if they
described themselves as American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian,
black or African American, Latino/Hispanic, or other (non-white). I
also coded respondents as racial/ethnic minorities if they selected
two or more race categories (including white in conjunction with
any other category). Contacts’ gender is measured using a dichoto-
mous variable where “1” is female and “0” is male. Models also
include a measure of contacts’ employment status coded “1” when
contacts were employed and “0” if they were unemployed, retired,
or a non-employed student, and an ordinal measure of contacts’
education (1, less than a high school diploma, high school graduate,
or having a GED; 2, some college; 3, 2-year college degree; 4, 4-year
college degree; 5, graduate or professional degree) at the time the
job seeker sought their help with the job search. Finally, contact’s
age in years is an ordinal measure of their age at the time they were
asked for help (1, 18–34 years; 2, 35–44 years; 3, 45–54 years; 4,
55–64 years; and 5, 65 years and older).
10
Unlike the variable measuring contacts’ ability to help, I code contacts as being
willing to help when contacts provided all the help for which job seekers asked, and
as unwilling if they did not provide at least one of the types of help for which job
seekers asked. In other words, this variable measures whether contacts show any
hesitation to help job seekers.
Some contacts were asked to help job seekers in more than one way (e.g.,
they were asked to share job information and provide an introduction), and many
contacts were able (n = 51) and willing (n = 12) to provide multiple types of help.
Dichotomous outcome variables do not account for this variation and may mask
the effects of contact status, contact-job seeker relationship strength and similar-
ity, and job seekers’ status on the extent to which contacts are able and willing to
help. In analysis not shown, I explore an alternative way of coding the outcome
variables to account for the fact that some contacts are asked to help more than
others, and some are able and willing to provide more help than others. To do this, I
created two alternate outcome variables. The first measures the proportion of types
of help contacts were able to provide relative to the types of help they were asked
to provide. The second measures the proportion of types of help contacts were will-
ing to provide relative to the types of help they were able and asked to provide.
Findings from the analyses using the proportion outcome variables are not substan-
tially different from the analyses using the dichotomous outcome variables. With
the exception of three coefficients—respondents’ gender, employment status, and
respondents’ education—becoming marginally statistically significant in the model
estimating contacts’ ability to help, the models are very similar. Because the mod-
els using dichotomous outcome variables are more parsimonious, I present findings
using these outcomes. Findings from this alternative analysis are available upon
request.
598 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603

2.3.2. Contact-job seeker relationship Table 1

Weighted descriptive statistics by contacts’ ability to help, n = 342.
I use two variables to capture the relationship between con-
tacts and job seekers: tie strength and social similarity. I measure Able to help (78%) Unable to help (22%)
tie strength with a series of four questionnaire items. Contacts’ Contact’s status
familiarity and closeness to job seekers are ordinal-level variables Minority 0.25 (—) 0.19 (—)
measuring the extent to which contacts are familiar with job seek- Female 0.44** (—) 0.64 (—)
ers’ work qualifications and the degree to which they feel close to Employed 0.80 (—) 0.68 (—)
Education 3.28 (1.43) 3.59 (1.49)
job seekers. Higher values represent more familiarity and greater
Age 3.29 (1.29) 3.31 (1.28)
levels of closeness. Years known is an ordinal-level measure of
Strength of relationship
the number of years contacts knew job seekers when they sought
Familiar 2.20* (0.80) 1.98 (0.80)
help (1, less than one year; 2, one to two years; 3, more than Close 1.98 (0.82) 2.01 (0.82)
2 years, but less than five; and 4, five or more years). Finally, Years known 3.00 (1.16) 3.02 (1.16)
past favor is a dichotomous variable coded “1” when job seek- Past favor 0.67 (—) 0.58 (—)
ers had done contacts a favor in the past and “0” when they had Social similarity 0.55 (—) 0.56 (—)

not. Control variable

Social similarity is a measure of the degree to which contacts and Urban/rural status 0.83 (—) 0.76 (—)
job seekers are socially similar in terms of race/ethnicity, gender, Source. Social Networks and Employment Assistance Survey. Analyses are weighted
age, and education. Values range from 0–1, with 1 indicating that for contacts’ urban/rural status, gender, and age. Standard deviations are in paren-
contacts and job seekers are similar across all four characteristics theses. Differences between able and unable contacts significant at: †p < .10,*p < .05,
**p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
and 0 indicating that they are dissimilar across the four character-
istics (values of .75, .5, and .25 signify that contacts and job seekers
are similar along 3, 2, or 1 characteristics, respectively). Table 2
Weighted descriptive statistics by contacts’ willingness to help, n = 344.

2.3.3. Job seekers’ status as a worker Willing to help (92%) Unwilling to help (8%)
The last set of independent variables measure job seekers’ Strength of relationship
characteristics, in particular characteristics signaling pro-work Familiar 2.27 (0.79) 2.21 (0.79)
behaviors. Good worker is an index measuring contacts’ percep- Close 2.03** (0.80) 1.52 (0.91)
Years known 3.06 (1.12) 3.07 (1.12)
tions of a job seeker’s work ethic and trustworthiness (alpha = .62).
Past favor 0.68 (—) 0.50 (—)
Responses range from 1–3 with higher values indicating that the Social similarity 0.55 (—) 0.52 (—)
job seeker was a better worker in the eyes of the respondent. Job
Job seeker’s status as a worker
seeker’s employment status measures whether a job seeker was
Good worker 2.54*** (0.56) 1.86 (1.11)
working when they asked the contact for help (1, employed and 0, Employed 0.28 (—) 0.25 (—)
unemployed). I also include a measure of job seekers’ race/ethnicity Minority 0.20† (—) 0.32 (—)
(1, minority and 0, white) and gender (1, female and 0, male) to tap Female 0.52 (—) 0.56 (—)
into the effects of race and gender stereotypes about workers on Control variable
contacts’ willingness to help.12 Urban/rural status 0.83 (—) 0.76 (—)

2.4. Control variables
Because I oversampled rural Washington State residents, and
because the different economic opportunities in urban and rural
environments may affect contacts’ ability and willingness to help
with job searches (Vias, 2012; Vias and Peter, 2006), I control for
contacts’ place of residence at the time of the survey. Urban equals
one when contacts were residing in urban areas at the time they
completed the survey (0, contacts were residing in rural areas).
3. Analytic sample and missing data
In the first analysis (testing hypotheses 1–3), I restrict the ana-
lytic sample to contacts who were asked by a job seeker to share
information about a job opportunity/opening, to share information
about a job or employer or were asked to provide an introduc-
tion to someone who could help with their search (n = 342). Of
the 577 original SNEAS respondents, 121 (21 percent) had not
been asked for help recently, 109 (19 percent) were not asked
to provide the three types of help I examine in the first analysis,
and five were missing data for the variables I used to construct
the analytic weights. The second analysis (testing hypotheses 4–6)
includes respondents who knew how to provide at least one of
the three types of help I investigate in the first analysis, or who
Source. Social Networks and Employment Assistance Survey. Analyses are weighted
for contacts’ urban/rural status, gender, and age. Standard deviations are in
parentheses. Differences between willing and unwilling contacts significant at:
†p < .10,*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001 (two-tailed).
were asked to provide a reference or letter of recommendation
(n = 344).
I weight to account for the oversampling of rural residents and
for the overrepresentation of women and older respondents in the
SNEAS sample. I estimate the models using listwise deletion for
cases that are missing values for the dependent variables and mul-
tiple imputation (MI) for missing data on the independent variables
and control variable. When data are missing at random, MI is pre-
ferred to listwise deletion or other methods of imputation as MI is
least likely to introduce bias into the models, violate missing com-
pletely at random assumptions or produce standard error estimates
that are too low (Allison, 2001).13
4. Results
Tables 1 and 2 show the weighted descriptive statistics for the
variables used in the following analyses, by contacts’ ability and
willingness to help with a job search.
The majority of SNEAS contacts—78 percent—knew how to
provide the kinds of help job seekers needed (see Table 1). Means

12 13
I instructed contacts to answer these questions while thinking about the time In analyses not shown, I estimate the analyses using list-wise deletion. Findings
when the job seeker asked for help rather than when the contacts were completing are not substantially different from the results using multiple imputation (results
the survey. available upon request).
 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
Table 3
Logistic regression estimates for contacts’ ability to help with a job search (n = 342).
ß expß
Contact’s status
Minority 0.21 (.45) 1.23
Female −0.92* (.34) 0.40
Employed 0.76* (.38) 2.14
Education −0.25* (.12) 0.78
Age 0.03 (.12) 1.03
Strength of relationship
Familiar 0.56* (.26) 1.74
Close −0.15 (.29) 0.86
Years known −0.18 (.17) 0.84
Past favor 0.36 (.38) 1.43
Social similarity −0.39 (.68) 0.68
Constant 1.09
Source. Social Networks and Employment Assistance Survey. Standard errors in
parentheses. Analyses are weighted for contacts’ urban/rural status, gender, and
age. Model controls for contacts’ residence in an urban or rural census block.
†p < .10,*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; two-tailed test.
comparisons tests revealed that able contacts, on average, are more
likely to be male than female and more likely to be familiar with
job seekers work qualifications than unable contacts.
Almost all contacts—92 percent—were willing to provide the
help job seekers needed for their search (see Table 2).
Willing contacts differ from unwilling contacts in three impor-
tant ways. First, willing contacts are more likely, on average, to
report feeling close to job seekers than unwilling contacts. Will-
ing contacts also think job seekers are better workers, on average,
than contacts who are unwilling to help. Finally, willing con-
tacts are less likely to be racial/ethnic minorities than unwilling
contacts, although this difference is only marginally statistically
significant.
Table 3 presents findings from a model regressing contacts’ abil-
ity to help with a job search on contacts’ status, tie strength, and
social similarity. This model tests hypotheses 1–3.
Three variables measuring contact status significantly predict
whether contacts are able to help: contacts’ gender, employment
status, and level of education. The odds that women know how to
help with a job search are 60 percent (ß = −0.92; expß = 0.40) the
odds of men, net of all variables in the model. Respondents who
were employed at the time they were asked for help are more
likely to know how to help job seekers than respondents who
were unemployed. The predicted net odds that employed respon-
dents know how to help are approximately 2 times the odds for
unemployed respondents (ß = 0.76; expß = 2.14). Surprisingly, abil-
ity to help with a job search decreases with respondents’ level
of education. A one-unit increase in level of education results in
a 22 percent decrease in ability to help (ß = −0.25; expß = 0.78).
Respondents’ race/ethnicity and age are not statistically signif-
icant predictors of being able to help with a job search. Thus,
I find mixed support for hypothesis 1 (High status contacts are
better able to help with job seekers’ searches than low status con-
tacts).
I find moderate support for hypothesis 2 (Contacts with strong
ties to job seekers are better able to help than contacts with weak ties).
Contacts’ familiarity with job seekers’ work qualifications predicts
contacts’ ability to help. A one-unit increase in the strength of the
relationship between contacts and job seekers is associated with a
74 percent (ß = 0.56; expß = 1.74) increase in the predicted odds of
knowing how to help, net of all other variables in the model. None
of the other measures of tie strength significantly predict ability to
help with a job search.
Finally, I find no evidence to support hypothesis 3 (Contacts
who are socially similar to job seekers are better able to help with
job searches than contacts who are socially dissimilar). Socially
599
Table 4
Logistic regression estimates for contacts’ willingness to help with a job search
(n = 344).
ß expß
Strength of relationship
Familiar −0.26 (.33) 0.77
Close 0.72 (.48) 2.06
Years known −0.38 (.27) 0.68
Past favor −0.11 (.60) 0.90
Social similarity −0.45 (.95) 0.64
Job seekers’ status as a worker
Good worker 1.66*** (.48) 5.24
Employed −0.32 (.80) 0.72
Minority −0.91 (.70) 0.40
Female −0.22 (.61) 0.80
Constant −0.64
Source. Social Networks and Employment Assistance Survey. Standard errors in
parentheses. Analyses are weighted for contacts’ urban/rural status, gender, and
age. Model controls for contacts’ residence in an urban or rural Census block.
†p < .10,*p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; two-tailed test.
dissimilar contacts are just as likely to help job seekers as socially
similar contacts.
Next, I examine the factors that affect social capital mobilization.
Table 4 shows the results of a logistic regression model predicting
contacts’ willingness to help with a job search.14 This model tests
hypothesis 4–6.
Although means comparisons tests showed that willing con-
tacts, on average, feel closer to job seekers than unwilling ones,
after controlling for job seekers’ characteristics and contacts’ place
of residence, I find no support for hypothesis 4 in the multivari-
ate analysis (Contacts with strong ties to job seekers are more willing
to help than contacts with weak ties). I also find no support for
hypothesis 5 (Contacts who are socially similar to job seekers are more
willing to help with searches than contacts who are socially dissimi-
lar). Socially similar contacts are no more willing to help job seekers
than socially dissimilar ones.
Finally, one measure of job seekers’ status significantly predicts
contacts’ willingness to help: whether contacts perceive job seekers
to be good workers. A one unit increase in job seekers’ perceptions
of contacts’ work ethic and trustworthiness yields a 424% increase
in the predicted odds that contacts are willing to help, net of con-
trol variables (ß = 1.66; expß = 5.24). Thus, I find strong evidence
that contacts’ perceptions of job seekers as workers matter for their
willingness to help with a job search. No other measures of job seek-
ers’ status affects contacts’ willingness to help, and so I find limited
support for hypothesis 6 (Contacts who perceive job seekers as good
workers are more willing to help with job searches than contacts who
perceive job seekers as bad workers).
5. Discussion
Using a unique approach to studying social capital and the job
search—one that focuses on social network contacts rather than
job seekers—this paper sought to identify the extent to which con-
tacts help with other’s job searches when asked, and the factors
that affect their provision of help. Before job seekers can become
employed with the help of contacts, they must first gain access
to and make use of their contacts’ social capital. In other words,
job seekers must seek out the help of contacts who possess the
resources they need for their search and then make use of those
14
Because so few contacts were unwilling to help with job seekers’ searches (8
percent), these findings should be considered exploratory and future researchers
should reexamine this issue using a larger sample of contacts.
600 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
resources to become employed. Studying the conditions in which
job seekers are able to do this provides key insights into why con-
tact use can be a productive job search strategy for some, but not
all job seekers.
Analyses show that most contacts—78 percent—are able to help
with a job search when asked. That is, more often than not, contacts
typically possess the kinds of resources job seekers need for their
searches. Still, I find that some factors increase (or decrease) con-
tacts’ ability to help. Consistent with SRT (Lin, 1999, 2000, 2001),
I find that male and employed contacts are more likely to know
how to help with job searches than female and unemployed con-
tacts. One likely reason that men are better able to help than
women is that discrimination and occupational sex segregation
limits women’s access to jobs with authority, power and pres-
tige (England, 2010; Reskin, 1993; Tomaskovic-Devey, 1993) which
restricts their ability to help with a job search. Indeed, women are
less likely than men to have access to high status connections at
work because they are concentrated in lower ranking occupations
than men (McGuire, 2000). As a result, women may be less likely
than men to possess job-related resources and less likely to be able
to act as an intermediary for a job seeker’s search. More refined
measures of contacts’ employment situations (e.g., occupation or
job duties, working in a job with hiring authority, support networks
at work, or occupational sex composition) would help to clarify the
mechanisms at play here.
An alternate possibility is that women have access to simi-
lar resources as men, but that women “devalue” the resources
they possess. Status expectations theory suggests that women are
expected to be less competent and committed at work than men
(Correll and Ridgeway, 2006; Ridgeway and Correll, 2004), and as a
result are judged and stereotyped more harshly than men (Heilman,
2001). Evidence suggests that women, like men, “buy into” these
stereotypes (Hirsh and Cha, 2008) which could affect their sense of
the value of their resources for job seekers. For example, women
may not view their job-related information as something that job
seekers would really want or that would be helpful, so they err on
the side of caution and say they do not know how to help when
asked. Men, on the other hand, who enjoy a privileged status in
the workplace (Ridgeway and Correll, 2004), may feel extra confi-
dent in their ability to help or feel like they are “expected” to know
how to help with work-related matters. A qualitative study that
fleshes out the decisions women and men make about whether
they are able to help and their impressions of the kinds of help that
would benefit particular job seekers would help shed light on this
finding.
No matter the mechanisms at play, this research suggests
that job seekers who network with female contacts will have
less productive job searches than job seekers who network with
male contacts. Because job seekers tend to find jobs with the
help of same gender contacts (Leicht and Marx, 1997; Mencken
and Winfield, 2000; Straits, 1998), women may be particularly
disadvantaged by female contacts’ inability to help with job
searches.
I also find that employed contacts are more likely to know
how to help with job seekers’ searches than unemployed con-
tacts. By virtue of being connected to a workplace, employed
contacts likely have better access to job-related resources than
unemployed contacts (e.g., work-related networks who key them
into upcoming job openings or to whom they can introduce job
seekers when they need help). These job-related resources put
employed contacts in the position to know how to help when
asked. Future research examining the types of useful resources
that employed and unemployed contacts possess would help
test this possibility. For example, future studies might ask study
participants to list job openings they know of, and then com-
pare how employed and unemployed contacts differ in the extent
of job leads they possess (Marin, 2007, 2012, 2013). In addi-
tion to explaining the advantages employed contacts have in
providing help, examining other indicators of social resources
(e.g., access to “insider information” or influence) could help
researchers pinpoint the kinds of resources that are most bene-
ficial for job seekers, the contacts who are most likely to possess
them, and the kinds of job seekers who know resourceful con-
tacts.
My analysis revealed that contacts’ ability to help with others’
job searches declines with their level of education. This finding is
surprising because, according to SRT (Lin, 1999, 2000, 2001), indi-
viduals’ network size not only increases with education, but also
diversifies (Marsden, 1987; McPherson et al., 2001, 2006), sug-
gesting that highly educated contacts should be particularly well
positioned to help with others’ job searches. One possible expla-
nation for this unexpected finding is that contacts’ knowledge
of job-related resources narrows when contacts reach a certain
level of specialization within a particular field (e.g., when they
possess an advanced professional or graduate degree). A study
which not only examines how knowledge of job-related resources
varies by level of education, but also by field of specialty would
help uncover whether contacts who are highly educated in some
fields (i.e., MBA) learn of more diverse job resources than con-
tacts who are highly educated in other fields (i.e., veterinary
medicine).
An alternative hypothesis is that contacts are better able to help
with a job search when they have higher levels of education than job
seekers. In other words, contacts’ level of education is less impor-
tant for predicting their ability to help than is their relative level
of education. To test this possibility, I examined the effects of a
series of dichotomous variables measuring contacts’ relative edu-
cation on their ability to help. This supplemental analysis revealed
that relative education matters. Specifically, the odds that higher
educated contacts are able to help are about 3.5 times the odds of
lower educated contacts. Contacts with the same level of education
as job seekers are just as likely to be able to help as contacts with
less education.15 Future research should continue to tease out the
effects of contact and job seekers’ education on contacts’ ability to
help with a job search.
My analyses also show that the strength of the relationship
between contacts and job seekers matters for contacts’ ability to
help. I find that contacts who are strongly tied to job seekers are
better able to help than weakly tied contacts. This finding supports
previous research on contact-job seeker tie strength and contacts’
provision of help with job searches which showed that contacts
hesitate to help weak ties with their job searches because contacts
were uncertain whether the help was wanted (Marin, 2007, 2012).
This finding has implications for the “strength of weak ties” argu-
ment, which suggests that weakly-tied contacts are more beneficial
for a job search than strongly tied because they provide access to
new, non-redundant job information and resources (Burt, 1992;
Granovetter, 1995). While weak ties may provide a job seeker with
novel resources, this study and Marin’s (2007, 2012) work suggest
that job seekers are less likely to access weak ties’ social capital
than strong ties’.
Another possible explanation is that job seekers are better able
to gauge the resources that strong ties possess compared with weak
ties and only target those likely to have the resources job seekers
need. In other words, because job seekers know more about strong
ties than weak, they are less likely to ask a strong tie than a weak
tie for help he or she is unable to provide. Until this possibility is
examined, job seekers should take extra care to make sure weakly
15
Results from this supplemental analysis are available upon request.
 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
tied contacts are familiar with their qualifications so that contacts
know how to help with their job searches.
My analyses show that few contacts are unwilling to help to
others’ job searches. Only eight percent of contacts showed some
hesitation in helping job seekers—that is, they were unwilling to
provide at least one of the types of help for which job seekers
asked. That so few contacts were unwilling to help is surprising,
especially in light of Sandra Smith’s (2005, 2007, 2010) qualita-
tive research on social capital mobilization. Smith (2005, 2007)
found that most (over 80 percent) of the low-income black workers
she studied showed hesitation in helping with others’ job searches
which stemmed from contacts’ fear of tarnishing their own work-
place reputations by making “bad” referrals.
Why are my findings so different from Smith’s (2005, 2007)?
One possible explanation is that I rely on a different sample of
respondents for my analysis. Perhaps, high levels of distrust and
unwillingness to help others with job searches is limited to low-
income, urban black contacts. Employers perceive low-income
black workers as unreliable which results in tenuous employment
situations (Kirschenman and Neckerman, 1991; Moss and Tilly,
2001; Wilson, 1996), and workers with extremely precarious labor
market positions are understandably more likely to be guarded
about making “bad” referrals than workers with stable positions
(Smith, 2005, 2007). In addition, Smith (2005, 2007) found that
hesitancy to help with a job search was more prevalent in neigh-
borhoods with concentrated disadvantage (i.e., extreme poverty,
high rates of welfare dependence, high crime rates) because these
environmental conditions foster pervasive distrust and impede col-
lective efficacy. The SNEAS sample is representative of the State
of Washington, which has few low-income urban blacks living in
areas of concentrated disadvantage relative to other states. For this
reason, my sample may have more willing contacts than studies of
low-income, urban, black populations.
Another possible explanation for the difference in findings has to
do with the way in which I measure contacts’ willingness to help.
I considered contacts as being willing to help job seekers if they
provided the help for which job seekers asked. Yet, it could be prob-
lematic to conflate providing help with willingness to help. With
the measure of contact willingness I use, I am unable to determine
whether contacts were at all hesitant to help job seekers. More-
over, since I did not ask contacts to rate the “quality” of help they
provided, I am unable to tell whether contacts hesitated to help
some job seekers but offered them “low quality” help as a conso-
lation or a way to “save face.” Future research that examines the
quality of help contacts provide to job seekers could help explain
the discrepancy between my findings and Smith’s (2005, 2007,
2010).
Despite a high percentage of contacts being willing to help,
one factor emerged as an important predictor of contacts’ will-
ingness: their perceptions of job seekers’ work quality. Analyses
show that contacts were more willing to help job seekers
whom they perceived to be “good” workers than job seek-
ers whom they perceived to be “bad.” This finding supports
Smith’s (2005, 2007) research demonstrating that contacts con-
sider job seekers’ reputations before agreeing to help with their
job searches. Although I find that contacts are more willing to
help with others’ job searches than Smith’s (2005, 2007, 2010)
work shows, it appears that my respondents used the same
criteria as Smith’s (2005, 2007, 2010) when deciding who to
help.
Descriptive analysis showed that willing and unwilling contacts
differ in other interesting ways. Means comparisons tests revealed
that willing contacts, on average, feel closer to job seekers and are
less likely to be racial/ethnic minorities than unwilling contacts.
601
These factors did not significantly predict contacts willingness to
help in my multivariate analysis, however future research should
reexamine their effects using a larger sample of willing and unwill-
ing contacts.
Finally, future research should consider alternative ways of col-
lecting data from contacts on their ability and willingness to help
others with their job searches. It is possible that my analysis over-
estimates contacts’ ability and willingness if contacts remembered
the last person they were able to help with a job search, or willing
to help, rather than the last person who asked for help. In other
words, contacts may be forgetting instances in which they were
unable or unwilling to help. There is no way of knowing whether
this affects my findings in significant ways; however I did take sev-
eral precautions when designing the survey to ensure respondents
recalled the last person who asked for help with a job search. For
example, in an effort to “jog” respondents’ memory about the last
time they were asked to help, I instructed them to read through
a list of nine common types of help that job seekers might have
asked them for before identifying the last person who asked for
help. I also conducted 15 cognitive interviews to pretest the SNEAS
questionnaire. During the interviews, I probed respondents about
whether they were in fact remembering the last person who asked
for their help with a job search. Findings from these interviews sug-
gest that contacts do typically remember the last person who asked
them for help, usually because the request happened recently (e.g.,
within the last month in many cases). Still, future research should
consider this a possibility and think creatively about ways to study
social capital activation and mobilization from the perspective of
contacts.
6. Conclusion
The saying, “ask and you shall receive,” applies to many job
seekers who turn to their social network contacts for help with
a job search. Most job seekers have contacts who help with their
searches, however those who rely on female, unemployed, less
educated, or unfamiliar contacts, or whose contacts think they are
“poor” workers do not get help. This research raises many ques-
tions for network and labor market scholars to explore through
future research. How do contacts make decisions about the types
of resources they share? Do gender and race/ethnic biases affect
contacts’ assessment of the types of job-related resources they
think job seekers want? Do contacts provide “good” quality help to
some job seekers, but not to others? How do contacts decide who
they will “go the extra mile” for? Future research that attempts to
address these sorts of questions will shed light on the mechanisms
driving social network contact use during the job search, contacts’
critical role in the job search, and the ways in which networks
continue to perpetuate labor market inequality.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Julie Kmec, Don Dillman, Amy Wharton,
the anonymous reviewers and editors of Social Networks for pro-
viding insightful comments on this paper. An earlier version of this
article was presented at the 2011 Annual Meeting of the American
Sociological Association, Las Vegas, Nevada. This research was sup-
ported in part by NSF Doctoral Dissertation Improvement Grant,
SES 1003692, and by the Washington State University Department
of Sociology Dissertation Grant. I would also like to thank the
Michelle R. Clayman Institute for Gender Research at Stanford Uni-
versity for the financial support they provided while writing this
article.
602 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603

Appendix A. Dillman, D.A., Smyth, J.D., Christian, L.M., 2009. Internet, Mail and Mixed-Mode
Surveys: The Tailored Design Method. John Wiley & Sons Inc., Hoboken, New
Jersey.
Comparison of social network and employment assistance sur- Drentea, P., 1998. Consequences of women’s formal and informal job search methods
vey respondents with Washington State population (adults ages 18 for employment in female-dominated jobs. Gender Soc. 12, 321–338.
and over)a Elliott, J.R., 1999. Social isolation and labor market insulation: network and
neighborhood effects on less-educated urban workers. Soc. Quart. 40,
Washington Total SNEAS 199–216.
State sample Elliott, J.R., 2000. Class, race and job matching in contemporary urban labor markets.
Soc. Sci. Quart. 81, 1036–1052.
Gender
Elliott, J.R., 2001. Referral hiring and ethnically homogeneous jobs: how prevalent
Male .50 .44†
is the connection and for whom? Soc. Sci. Res. 30, 401–425.
Female .50 .56*
England, P., 2010. The gender revolution: uneven and stalled. Gender Soc. 24,
Age 149–166.
18–34 years .31 .22* Falcón, L.M., Melendez, E., 2001. The social context of job searching for racial groups
in urban centers. In: ’Connor, A., Tilly, C., Bobo, L. (Eds.), Urban Inequality: Evi-
35–44 years .18 .13
dence from Four Cities. Russell Sage, New York, pp. 341–371.
45–54 years .19 .27*
Fernandez, R.M., Castilla, E.J., 2001. How much is that network worth? social capital
55–64 years .16 .21
in employee referral networks. In: Lin, N., Cook, K.S., Burt, R.S. (Eds.), Social
65 years and older .16 .18 Capital: Theory and Research. Transaction Publishers, New Brunswick, NJ, pp.
Race/ethnicity 85–104.
Fernandez, R.M., Fernandez-Mateo, I., 2006. Networks, race, and hiring. Am. Sociol.
White alone .74b .84***
Rev. 71, 42–71.
Minority .27 .16*
Fernandez, R.M., Sosa, M.L., 2005. Gendering the job: networks and recruitment at
Black/African American alone .03 .02
a call center. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 859–904.
Asian only .07c .07 Fernandez, R.M., Weinberg, N., 1997. Sifting and sorting: personal contacts and
American Indian/Alaska Native alone .01 .01 hiring in a retail bank. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62, 883–902.
Latino/Hispanic alone .10 .03 Fernandez, R.M., Castilla, E.J., Moore, P., 2000. Social capital at work: networks and
Other alone .02 – employment at a phone center. Am. J. Sociol. 105, 1288–1356.
Two or more races .04 .03 Fiske, S.T., 1998. Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In: Gilbert, D.T., Fiske,
S.T., Lindzey, G. (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psycholog, 4th ed. McGraw Hill,
Employment status New York, pp. 357–411.
Employed .62d .65 Granovetter, M., 1982. The strength of weak ties: a network theory revisited. In:
Unemployed, but looking for a job .06d .09 Marsden, P.V., Lin, N. (Eds.), Social Structure and Network Analysis. Sage, Beverly
Unemployed, not looking for a job .32d .26 Hills, CA, pp. 105–130.
n 5,093,008 577 Granovetter, M., 1985. Economic action and social structure the problem of embed-
Source. Social networks and employment assistance survey (SNEAS) and 2009 dedness. Am. J. Sociol. 91, 481–510.
American Community Survey (2009) analyses are weighted using a design weight Granovetter, M., 1995. Getting a Job: A Study of Contacts and Careers, 2nd ed. Uni-
versity of Chicago Press, Chicago.
to account for the overrepresentation of rural Washington State residents in the
Green, G.P., Tigges, L.M., Diaz, D., 1999. Racial and ethnic differences in job-search
sample.
strategies in Atlanta, Boston, and Los Angeles. Soc. Sci. Quart. 80, 263–278.
Differences between the SNEAS sample and WA state population significant at: Hanson, S., Pratt, G., 1991. Job search and the occupational segregation of women.
†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001 (two-tailed tests). Ann. Assoc. Am. Geog. 81, 229–253.
a
Author calculations using data from the 2009 American Community Survey Heilman, M.E., 2001. Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent
(2009). women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57, 657–674.
b Hirsh, C.E., Cha, Y., 2008. Understanding employment discrimination: a multilevel
The ACS does not provide information on the share of non-Latino/Hispanic racial
minorities over the age of 18. Therefore, I calculated the racial/ethnic composi- approach. Sociol. Compass, 1989–2007.
tion for the entire WA State population (n = 6,664,195) instead of the racial/ethnic Ioannides, Y.M., Loury, L.D., 2004. Job information networks, neighborhood effects,
composition of those 18 years and older. and inequality. J. Econ. Lit. 42, 1056–1093.
c Kasinitz, P., Rosenberg, J., 1996. Missing the connection: social isolation and employ-
Category includes Native Hawaiian and other Pacific Islander.
d
ment on the Brooklyn Waterfront. Soc. Probl. 43, 180–195.
Civilian population, 20 years or older. Kirschenman, J., Neckerman, K., 1991. We’d love to hire them, but. . .: the meaning
of race for employers. In: Jencks, C., Peterson, P.E. (Eds.), The Urban Underclass.
Brookings Institute Press, Washington D.C., pp. 203–232.
References Kmec, Julie A., Lindsey B. Trimble. 2009. “Does it Pay to have a Network Contact?
Social Network Ties, Workplace Racial Context, and Pay Outcomes.” Social Sci-
Allison, S., 2001. Missing Data. Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. ence Research 38: 266-278.
American Association for Public Opinion Research (AAPOR), 2010. Standard Defini- Leicht, K.T., Marx, J., 1997. The consequences of informal job finding for men and
tions: Final Dispositions of Case Codes and Outcome Rates for Surveys, Available women. Acad. Manage. J. 40, 967–987.
at http://www.aapor.org/Standard Definitions1.htm. Retrieved November 15, Lin, N., 1999. Social networks and status attainment. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 25, 467–487.
2010. Lin, N., 2000. Inequality in social capital. Contemp. Sociol. 29, 785–795.
American Community Survey (ACS), 2009. 2009 American Community Survey 1 Lin, N., 2001. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. University Press,
Year Estimates: Washington: Detailed Tables. Generated by AUTHOR using Cambridge.
American Factfinder, U.S. Census Bureau, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Available Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., Vaugh, J.C., 1981. Social resources and strength of ties: structural
at http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml. Retrieved factors in occupational status attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 393–405.
December 3, 2010. Link, M.W., Battaglia, M.P., Frankel, M.R., Osborn, L., Mokdad, A.H., 2008. A com-
Battaglia, M.P., Izrael, D., Hoaglin, D.C., Frankel, M.R., 2004. Tips and Tricks parison of address-based sampling (abs) versus random digit dialing (rdd) for
for Raking Survey Data (a.k.a. Sample Balancing). American Association for general population surveys. Public Opin. Quart. 72, 6–27.
Public Opinion Research, Available at http://www.amstat.org/sections/srms/ Marin, A., 2007. Social Capital as Process: The Network Sources of Latent, Available,
Proceedings/y2004/files/Jsm2004-000074.pdf. Retrieved August 15, 2011. and Accessed Job Information. Department of Sociology, Harvard University,
Bian, Y., 1994. Guanxi and the allocation of urban jobs in China. China Quart. 140, Cambridge, MA (PhD dissertation).
971–999. Marin, A., 2012. Don’t mention it: why people don’t share job information, when
Bian, Y., 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job they do, and why it matters. Soc. Networks 34, 181–192.
searches in China. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62, 366–385. Marin, A., 2013. Who can tell? network diversity, within-industry networks and
Burt, R., 1992. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition. Harvard Uni- opportunities to share job information. Sociol. Forum (forthcoming).
versity Press, Cambridge, Mass. Marsden, P.V., 1987. Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52,
Burt, R., 2001. Bandwidth and echo: trust information, and gossip in social networks. 122–131.
In: James, E.R., Alessandra, C. (Eds.), Networks and Markets. Russell Sage Foun- Marsden, P.V., Gorman, E.H., 2001. Social networks, job changes, and recruitment.
dation, New York, pp. 30–74. In: Berg, I., Kalleberg, A. (Eds.), Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Structures
Braddock, J.H., McPartland, J.M., 1987. How minorities continue to be excluded from and Processes. Kluwer Academic, New York, pp. 467–502.
equal employment outcomes: research on labor market and institutional barri- Marsden, P.V., Hurlbert, J.S., 1988. Social resources and mobility outcomes: a repli-
ers. J. Soc. Issues 43, 5–39. cation and extension. Soc. Forces 66, 1038–1059.
Campbell, K.E., Marsden, P.V., Hurlbert, J.S., 1986. Social resources and socioeco- McDonald, S., 2011. What’s in the old boys network? accessing social capital in
nomic status. Soc. Networks 8, 97–117. gendered and racialized networks. Soc. Networks 33, 317–330.
Correll, S.J., Ridgeway, C.L., 2006. Expectation states theory. In: Delamator, J. (Ed.), McDonald, S., Mair, C.A., 2010. Social capital across the life course: age and gendered
Handbook of Social Psychology. Springer, New York, pp. 29–51. patterns of network resources. Sociol. Forum 25, 335–359.
 L. Trimble O’Connor / Social Networks 35 (2013) 593–603
McDonald, S., Lin, N., Ao, D., 2009. Network of opportunity: gender, race, and job
leads. Soc. Probl. 56, 385–402.
McGuire, G., 2000. Gender, race, ethnicity, and networks: the factors affecting the
status of employees’ network members. Work Occup. 27, 501–523.
McPherson, M.J., Smith-Lovin, L., Brashears, M., 2006. Social isolation in America:
changes in core discussion networks over two decades. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71,
353–375.
McPherson, M.J., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.M., 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in
social networks. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444.
Mencken, F.C., Winfield, I., 2000. Job search and sex segregation: does sex of social
contact matter? Sex Roles 42, 847–864.
Moss, P., Tilly, C., 2001. Stories Employers Tell: Race, Skill and Hiring in America.
Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Mouw, T., 2003. Social capital and finding a job: do contacts matter? Am. Sociol. Rev.
68, 868–898.
Newman, K., 1999. No Shame in My Game: The Working Poor in the Inner City. Knopf
and the Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Petersen, T., Saporta, I., Seidel, M.L., 2000. Offering a Job: meritocracy and social
networks. Am. J. Sociol. 106, 763–816.
Portes, A., 1998. Social capital: its origins and applications in modern sociology. Ann.
Rev. Sociol. 24, 1–24.
Rankin, B., Quane, J.M., 2000. Neighborhood poverty and the social isolation of inner-
city African–American families. Soc. Forces 79, 139–164.
Reskin, B.F., 1993. Sex segregation in the workplace. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 19, 241–270.
Reskin, B.F., 2000. The proximate causes of employment discrimination. Contemp.
Sociol. 29, 319–328.
Ridgeway, C., Correll, S., 2004. Unpacking the gender system: a theoretical perspec-
tive on gender beliefs and social relations. Gender Soc. 18, 510–531.
Royster, D.A., 2003. Race and the Invisible Hand: How White Networks Exclude Black
Men from Blue-Collar Jobs. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Seibert, Scott, E., Maria, L., Kraimer, Robert, C., Liden, 2001. A social capital theory of
careers. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 219–237.
Sherman, J., 2009. Those Who Work, Those Who Don’t: Poverty, Morality, and Family
in Rural America. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota.
603
Smith, R.A., 2002. Race, gender, and authority in the workplace: theory and research.
Ann. Rev. Sociol. 28, 509–542.
Smith, S.S., 2000. Mobilizing social resources: race, ethnic, and gender differences
in social capital and persisting wage inequalities. Sociol. Quart. 41, 509–537.
Smith, S.S., 2005. Don’t put my name on it: social capital activation and job-finding
assistance among the back urban poor. Am. J. Sociol. 111, 1–57.
Smith, S.S., 2007. Lone Pursuit: Distrust and Defensive Individualism Among the
Black Poor. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Smith, S.S., 2010. A test of sincerity: how black and latino service workers make
decisions about making referrals. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 629, 30–52.
Stainback, K., 2008. Social contacts and race/ethnic job matching. Soc. Forces 87,
857–886.
Straits, B.C., 1998. Occupational sex segregation: the role of personal ties. J. Vocat.
Behav. 52, 191–207.
Tigges, L.M., Browne, I., Green, G.P., 1998. Social isolation of the urban poor. Sociol.
Quart. 39, 53–77.
Tomaskovic-Devey, D., 1993. Gender and Racial Inequality at Work: The Sources and
Consequences of Job Segregation. ILR Press, Ithaca, NY.
Trimble Lindsey, B., Julie Kmec, A., Steve McDonald, 2013. Social Networks and the
Job Search: Focusing on People Asked to Provide Job Assistance. Nova Science
Publishers (forthcoming).
United States Bureau of the Census, 2000. Urban and Rural Classification, Avail-
able at http://www.census.gov/geo/www/ua/ua 2k.html. Retrieved December
19, 2011.
Vias, A.C., 2012. Perspectives on U.S. rural labor markets in the first decade
of the twenty-first century. In: Kulscár, L.J., Curtis, K.J. (Eds.), International
Handbook of Rural Demograph, 3rd ed. Springer, Dordercht, Netherlands,
pp. 273–291.
Vias, A.C., Peter, N.B., 2006. Changing livelihoods in rural America. In: Kandel, W.A.,
Brown, D.L. (Eds.), Population Change and Rural Society. Springer, Dordercht,
Netherlands, pp. 75–102.
Wilson, W.J., 1996. When Work Disappears. Knopf, New York.
Yakubovich, V., 2005. Weak ties, information, and influence: how workers find jobs
in a local Russian labor market. Am. Sociol. Rev. 70, 408–421.