Sex differences in social networks
31
Table 3
Social Network Stability between Time 1 and 2
|
Boys |
Girls |
Total | |
|
Cores | |||
|
Stable 100% |
0% |
38% |
23% |
|
Count |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
Stable >50%* |
89% |
77% |
82% |
|
Count |
8 |
10 |
18 |
|
Unstable <50% |
11% |
23% |
18% |
|
Count |
1 |
3 |
4 |
|
Total |
41% |
59% |
100% |
|
Count |
9 |
13 |
22 |
|
Groups | |||
|
Stable 100% |
0% |
24% |
17% |
|
Count |
0 |
5 |
5 |
|
Stable >50%* |
100% |
67% |
76% |
|
Count |
8 |
14 |
22 |
|
Unstable <50% |
0% |
33% |
24% |
|
Count |
0 |
7 |
7 |
|
Total |
28% |
72% |
100% |
|
Count |
8 |
21 |
29 |
Note. *Figures include social networks that were 100% stable.
More intriguing information
1. Standards behaviours face to innovation of the entrepreneurships of Beira Interior2. Food Prices and Overweight Patterns in Italy
3. The Mathematical Components of Engineering
4. The name is absent
5. Weak and strong sustainability indicators, and regional environmental resources
6. Gender and headship in the twenty-first century
7. The name is absent
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. The name is absent