Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-g4j75 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T09:47:28.248Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Network Models for Social Influence Processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Garry Robins ,
Philippa Pattison  and
Peter Elliott
Garry Robins*
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Philippa Pattison
Affiliation:
University of Melbourne
Peter Elliott
Affiliation:
Swinburne University of Technology
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Garry Robins, School of Behavioural Science, Department of Psychology, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Vic. 3010 AUSTRALIA. E-Mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper generalizes the p* class of models for social network data to predict individual-level attributes from network ties. The p* model for social networks permits the modeling of social relationships in terms of particular local relational or network configurations. In this paper we present methods for modeling attribute measures in terms of network ties, and so construct p* models for the patterns of social influence within a network. Attribute variables are included in a directed dependence graph and the Hammersley-Clifford theorem is employed to derive probability models whose parameters can be estimated using maximum pseudo-likelihood. The models are compared to existing network effects models. They can be interpreted in terms of public or private social influence phenomena within groups. The models are illustrated by an empirical example involving a training course, with trainees' reactions to aspects of the course found to relate to those of their network partners.

Keywords

social networkssocial influencep* modelsnetwork effects modelsattitudesgraphical models
Type
Articles
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 66 , Issue 2 , June 2001 , pp. 161 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © 2001 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

This research was supported by grants from the Australian Research Council. The authors would like to acknowledge the help of Stanley Wasserman, Janice Langan-Fox and Larry Hubert, and would like to thank four anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the North American Conference of the Psychometric Society, Lawrence, Kansas, June, 1999, and at the Australasian Mathematical Psychology Conference, Brisbane, Australia, December 1999.

References

Arrow, H., McGrath, J.E. (1995). Membership dynamics in groups at work: A theoretical framework. In Cummings, L.L., Staw, B.M. (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior, Vol. 17 (pp. 373–411). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Besag, J.E. (1974). Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 36, 96–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besag, J.E., Clifford, P. (1989). Generalized Monte Carlo significance tests. Biometrika, 76, 633–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92, 205–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. (1986). An approach for relating social structure to cognitive structure. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 12, 137–189.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carley, K. (1989). The value of cognitive foundations for dynamic social theory. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 14, 171–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, D.R., Wermuth, N. (1996). Multivariate dependencies—Models, analysis and interpretation. London: Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Crouch, B., & Wasserman, S. (1988, May). Fittingp*: Monte Carlo maximum likelihood estimation. Paper presented at International Conference on Social Networks, Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
Doreian, P. (1982). Maximum likelihood methods for linear models. Sociological Methods & Research, 10, 243–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, W.N., Ginsberg, A. (1986). A sociocognitive network approach to organizational analysis. Human Relations, 40, 955–976.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, D. (1995). Introduction to graphical modelling. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elliott, P. (2000). Statistical models for the relationship between personal attributes and social ties: Applications to adolescent female peer groups. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Erbring, L., Young, A.A. (1979). Individuals and social structure: Contextual effects as endogenous feedback. Sociological Methods & Research, 7, 396–430.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Erickson, B.H. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In Wellman, B., Berkowitz, S.D. (Eds.), Social structures: A network approach (pp. 99–121). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Frank, O., Strauss, D. (1986). Markov graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 832–842.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N.E. (1993). Structural bases of interpersonal influence in groups: A longitudinal case study. American Sociological Review, 58, 861–872.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N.E. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C. (1990). Social influence and opinions. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 15, 193–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedkin, N.E., Johnsen, E.C. (1997). Social positions in influence networks. Social Networks, 19, 210–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geyer, C.J., Thompson, E.A. (1992). Constrained Monte Carlo maximum likelihood for dependent data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 54, 657–699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, P.W., Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs (with discussion). Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 33–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krackhardt, D. (1997, February). Identity, control and Simmelian ties. Paper presented at The White Tie Event in honour of Harrison White, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
Klimoski, R., Mohammed, S. (1994). Team mental model: Construct or metaphor?. Journal of Management, 20, 403–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Latane, B., L'Herrou, T. (1996). Spatial clustering in the conformity game: Dynamic social impact in electronic groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1218–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritzen, S.L. (1996). Graphical models. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lauritzen, S.L., Spiegelhalter, D.J. (1988). Local computations with probabilities on graphical structures and their application to expert systems. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 50, 157–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leenders, R.Th.A.J. (1997). Longitudinal behavior of network structure and actor attributes: Modeling interdependence of contagion and selection. In Doreian, P., Stokman, F.N. (Eds.), Evolution of social networks (pp. 165–184). Amsterdam: Gordon & Breach.Google Scholar
Leifer, E. (1988). Interaction preludes to role-setting: Exploratory local action. American Sociological Review, 53, 865–878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markovsky, B., Chaffee, M. (1995). Social identity and solidarity. In Markovsky, B., Heimer, K., O'Brien, J. (Eds.), Advance in group processes, Vol. 12 (pp. 249–270). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Markovsky, B., Lawler, E.J. (1994). A new theory of group solidarity. In Markovsky, B., Heimer, K., O'Brien, J. (Eds.), Advance in group processes, Vol. 11 (pp. 113–137). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, P.V., Friedkin, N.E. (1994). Network studies of social influence. In Wasserman, S., Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 3–25). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S. (1985). Social influence and conformity. In Lindzey, G., Aronson, E. (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology: Volume II Special fields and applications (pp. 347–412). New York, NY: Random House.Google Scholar
Moscovici, S., Doise, W. (1994). Conflict and consensus: A general theory of collective decisions. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Pattison, P. (1994). Social cognition in context. In Wasserman, S., Galaskiewicz, J. (Eds.), Advances in social network analysis (pp. 79–109). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Pattison, P., & Robins, G.L. (2000, April). Neighbourhood-based models for social networks: Beyond Markovian neighbourhoods. Paper presented at International Sunbelt Social Network Conference.Google Scholar
Pattison, P., Wasserman, S. (1999). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: II. Multivariate relations. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 52, 169–193.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Prendergast, J.F., Gange, S.J., Newton, M.A., Lindstrom, M.J., Palta, M., Fisher, M.R. (1996). A survey of methods for analyzing clustered binary response data. International Statistical Review, 64, 89–118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, G.L. (1998). Personal attributes in interpersonal contexts: Statistical models for individual characteristics and social relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Melbourne, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
Robins, G.L., Elliott, P., Pattison, P. (2001). Network models for social selection processes. Social Networks, 23, 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robins, G.L., Pattison, P., Wasserman, S. (1999). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: III. Valued relations. Psychometrika, 64, 371–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schein, E.H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
Sherif, M. (1964). The psychology of group norms. New York, NY: Harper & Row. (Original work published 1936)Google Scholar
Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., Sherif, C.W. (1988). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The robber's cave experiment. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma. (Original work published 1961)Google Scholar
Stokman, F.N., Zeggelink, E.P.H. (1996). Self organizing friendship networks. In Liebrand, W.B.G., Messick, D.M. (Eds.), Frontiers in social dilemmas research (pp. 385–418). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strauss, D., Ikeda, M. (1990). Pseudolikelihood estimation for social networks. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 204–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van de Bunt, G.G., Van Duijn, M.A.J., Snijders, T.A.B. (1999). Friendship networks through time: An actor-oriented dynamic statistical network model. Computational & Mathematical Organization Theory, 5, 167–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S., Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wasserman, S., Pattison, P. (1996). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs andp*. Psychometrika, 61, 401–425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weick, K.E., Roberts, K.H. (1993). Collective mind in organizations: Heedful interrelating on flight decks. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 357–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wermuth, N., Lauritzen, S.L. (1990). On substantive research hypotheses, conditional independence graphs and graphical chain models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 52, 21–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittaker, J. (1990). Graphical models in applied multivariate statistics. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Winsborough, H.H., Quarantelli, E.L., Yutzky, D. (1963). The similarity of connected observations. American Sociological Review, 28, 977–983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar