This paper explores how respondents understand and interpret Antonucci's hierarchical approach (Antonucci, 1986) for measuring ego-centered social networks. Cognitive in-depth probes were used to assess how respondents (egos) differentiated among people (alters) that are named in hierarchical circles and what criteria they used to select people from their global social network. In Antonucci’s approach emotional criteria are used for selecting alters from the respondent’s global network and placing them into three hierarchical circles that are graphically presented to the respondent. The respondent (ego) is at the center of the three circles. The more central the circle, the closer and more important are the people (alters) within it. The technique begins by asking the individual to look at the diagram of three concentric circles, with a smaller circle in the center containing the word 'You'. Respondents are told that the three circles should be thought of as including »people who are important in your life right now« but who are not necessarily equally close. Individuals in the inner circle are described as »those people to whom you feel so close that it is hard to imagine life without them.« The middle circle is described as »people to whom you may not feel quite that close but who are still important to you.« And finally, outer-circle members are »people whom you haven't already mentioned but who are close enough and important enough in your life that they should be placed in your personal network.« (Antonucci, 1986). This procedure is often used in research on ego-centered support networks. Only one “name generator” is used for data collection, a technique which is more convenient for respondents and cheaper for the researcher. Data were collected by face-to-face data collection mode with a convenient sample of 84 respondents. First, respondents filled in the Antonucci’s measurement instrument, and second, they were asked to evaluate the interpretation of the emotional criteria used to elicit the members of the ego-centered social network. Analyses show that the respondents most often focused on types of ties (for example “I thought of - my family, my best friend,...”), quality of ties (for example “I cannot imagine my life without them.” or “These are people that are close to me.”) or formal characteristics of ties (for example “These are people I have regular contacts with.”) regardless of the circle. When focusing on the differences among people within circles, respondents gave three types of answers. Some focused on hierarchical differences between people (for example “In the inner circle is my family, in the second are good friends and in the third are acquaintances.”); others focused on various characteristics of ties (for example “In the inner circle are people that are very close to me,…” or “I see most often,…” or “I have regular contacts,...”). Some respondents used different criteria at the same time. Some respondents established their own hierarchy among the circles (for example “I distinguish between the circles based on frequency of contacts, or closeness…”). Analyses also show that there are differences in interpretation depending on age of respondents, but not in relation to other demographic variables.