No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The Columbia Studies of Personal Influence
Social Network Analysis
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 January 2016
Extract
In a strictly theoretical and methodological perspective, the Columbia studies of personal influence—conducted in the 1940s and early 1950s—are today of largely historical interest as particularly self-conscious and sophisticated examples of social-scientific discovery. Yet, there are indications that these studies are once more coming to scholarly attention and their long eclipse, so symptomatic of discontinuity in social-scientific research, may be coming to an end (Scheingold, 1973). There is a growing interest in describing and explaining electoral and related patterns of behavior in terms of the “social networks” to which people belong. The contribution of the Columbia studies to research on the effect of social networks in voting behavior and public affairs seems therefore worthy of retrospection.
- Type
- Retrospective Review
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Social Science History Association 1980
References
Bavelas, A. “Communications patterns in task-oriented groups.” Pp. 193–202 in Lerner, D. and Lasswell, H. D. (eds.), The Policy Sciences. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Berelson, B. R., Lazarsfeld, P. F., and McPhee, W. N. (1954) Voting: A Study of Opinion Formation in a Presidential Campaign. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Burdick, E. and Brodbeck, A. J. [eds.] (1959) American Voting Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1959) “Relational analysis: The study of social organization with survey methods.” Human Organization 17 (Winter): 28–36.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S., Katz, E., and Menzel, H. (1966) Medical Innovation: A Diffusion Study. New York: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Eulau, H. (1976) “Understanding political life in America: The contribution of political science.” SSQ 57: 119–121.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. A., Schachter, S. S., and Back, K. W. (1950) Social Pressures in Informal Groups. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1976) “Network sampling: some first steps.” Amer. J. of Sociology 81 (May).Google Scholar
Granovetter, M. (1973) “The strength of weak ties.” Amer. J. of Sociology 78: 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Katz, E. (1968) “Diffusion: interpersonal influence.” Intl. Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 4: 178–185.Google Scholar
Katz, E. and Lazarsfeld, P. F. (1955) Personal Influence: The Past Played by People in the Flow of Mass Communications. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B. R., and Gaudet, H. (1948) The People's Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.Google Scholar
Leavitt, H. (1951) “Some effects of certain communication patterns on group performance.” J. of Abnormal and Social Psychology 46.Google Scholar
Lippitt, R. and White, R. K. (1952) “An experimental study of leadership and group life.” Pp. 340–355 in Swanson, G. E. et al. (eds.). Readings in Social Psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Mayer, A. C. (1966) “The significance of quasi-groups in the study of complex societies.” Pp. 97–121 in Banton, M. (ed.). The Social Anthropology of Complex Societies. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
McPhee, W. M. and Glaser, W. A. [eds.] (1962) Public Opinion and Congressional Elections. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Merton, R. K. (1957) “Patterns of influence: local and cosmopolitan influentials.” Pp. 387–420 in Merton, R., Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H. (1959) “Four landmarks in voting research.” Pp. 5–54 in Burdick, E. and Brodbeck, A. J. (eds.), American Voting Behavior. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Scheingold, C. A. (1973) “Social networks and voting: the resurrection of a research agenda.” ASR 39: 712–720.Google Scholar