1932

Abstract

Fueled by recent advances in statistical modeling and the rapid growth of network data, social network analysis has become increasingly popular in sociology and related disciplines. However, a significant amount of work in the field has been descriptive and correlational, which prevents the findings from being more rigorously translated into practices and policies. This article provides a review of the popular models and methods for causal network analysis, with a focus on causal inference threats (such as measurement error, missing data, network endogeneity, contextual confounding, simultaneity, and collinearity) and potential solutions (such as instrumental variables, specialized experiments, and leveraging longitudinal data). It covers major models and methods for both network formation and network effects and for both sociocentric networks and egocentric networks. Lastly, this review also discusses future directions for causal network analysis.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102100
2022-07-29
2024-06-13
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/soc/48/1/annurev-soc-030320-102100.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102100&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Advani A, Malde B. 2018a. Credibly identifying social effects: accounting for network formation and measurement error. J. Econ. Surv. 32:41016–44
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Advani A, Malde B. 2018b. Methods to identify linear network models: a review. Swiss J. Econ. Surv. Stat. 154:12
    [Google Scholar]
  3. An W 2011. Models and methods to identify peer effects. The SAGE Handbook of Social Network Analysis J Scott, PJ Carrington 514–32 London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  4. An W 2015a. Instrumental variables estimates of peer effects in social networks. Soc. Sci. Res. 50:382–94
    [Google Scholar]
  5. An W 2015b. Multilevel meta network analysis with application to studying network dynamics of network interventions. Soc. Netw. 43:48–56
    [Google Scholar]
  6. An W 2016. Fitting ERGMS on big networks. Soc. Sci. Res. 59:107–19
    [Google Scholar]
  7. An W 2018. Causal inference with networked treatment diffusion. Sociol. Methodol. 48:1152–81
    [Google Scholar]
  8. An W 2021. A tale of twin dependence: a new multivariate regression model and an FGLS estimator for analyzing outcomes with network dependence. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/00491241211031263
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  9. An W 2022a. Friendship network formation in Chinese middle schools: patterns of inequality and homophily. Soc. Netw. 68:218–28
    [Google Scholar]
  10. An W 2022b. You said, they said: a framework on informant accuracy with application to studying self-reports and peer-reports. Soc. Netw. 70:187–97
    [Google Scholar]
  11. An W, Doan L 2015. Health surveillance through social networks. Soc. Netw. 42:8–17
    [Google Scholar]
  12. An W, Schramski S 2015. Analysis of contested reports in exchange networks based on actors’ credibility. Soc. Netw. 40:125–33
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Angrist JD, Pischke J. 2009. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Aral S, Muchnik L, Sundararajan A. 2009. Distinguishing influence-based contagion from homophily-driven diffusion in dynamic networks. PNAS 106:5121544–49
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Arcidiacono P, Foster G, Goodpaster N, Kinsler J. 2012. Estimating spillovers using panel data, with an application to the classroom. Quant. Econ. 3:3421–70
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Arduini T, Patacchini E, Rainone E. 2015. Parametric and semiparametric IV estimation of network models with selectivity EIEF Work. Pap. 1509, Einaudi Inst. Econ. Finance Rome:
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Baldassarri D, Diani M. 2007. The integrative power of civic networks. Am. J. Sociol. 113:3735–80
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Barrat A, Barthelemy M, Vespignani A. 2008. Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Bearman PS, Moody J, Stovel K. 2004. Chains of affection: the structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks. Am. J. Sociol. 110:144–91
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Bian Y. 1997. Bringing strong ties back in: indirect ties, network bridges, and job searches in China. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:3366–85
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Block JP, Christakis NA, O'Malley AJ, Subramanian SV 2011. Proximity to food establishments and body mass index in the Framingham Heart Study offspring cohort over 30 years. Am. J. Epidemiol. 174:101108–14
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Block P. 2015. Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Soc. Netw. 40:163–73
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Block P, Koskinen J, Hollway J, Steglich C, Stadtfeld C. 2018. Change we can believe in: comparing longitudinal network models on consistency, interpretability, and predictive power. Soc. Netw. 52:180–91
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Borgatti SP, Mehra A, Brass DJ, Labianca G. 2009. Network analysis in the social sciences. Science 323:5916892–95
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Boucher V, Fortin B. 2016. Some challenges in the empirics of the effects of networks. The Oxford Handbook of the Economics of Networks Y Bramoullé, A Galeotti, BW Rogers 276–302 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B. 2009. Identification of peer effects through social networks. J. Econom. 150:141–55
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Bramoullé Y, Djebbari H, Fortin B. 2020. Peer effects in networks: a survey. Annu. Rev. Econ. 12:603–29
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Brewer DD, Webster CM. 2000. Forgetting of friends and its effects on measuring friendship networks. Soc. Netw. 21:4361–73
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Burt RS. 1987. Social contagion and innovation: cohesion versus structural equivalence. Am. J. Sociol. 92:61287–335
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Burt RS. 1995. Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Caeyers B, Fafchamps M. 2020. Exclusion bias in the estimation of peer effects CEPR Discuss. Pap. 14386, Cent. Econ. Policy Res. London:
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Calderhead B. 2014. A general construction for parallelizing Metropolis−Hastings algorithms. PNAS 111:4917408–13
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Carrell SE, Fullerton RL, West JE. 2009. Does your cohort matter? Measuring peer effects in college achievement. J. Labor Econ. 27:3439–64
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Carvalho VM, Nirei M, Saito YU, Tahbaz-Salehi A. 2021. Supply chain disruptions: evidence from the great East Japan earthquake. Q. J. Econ. 136:21255–321
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Centola D. 2010. The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science 329:59961194–97
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Christakis NA, Fowler JH. 2007. The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N. Engl. J. Med. 357:4370–79
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Clarke PA, Windmeijer F. 2012. Instrumental variable estimators for binary outcomes. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 107:1638–52
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Cohen-Cole E, Fletcher JM 2008. Is obesity contagious? Social networks versus environmental factors in the obesity epidemic. J. Health Econ. 27:51382–87
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Comfort AB, Harper CC, Tsai AC, Perkins JM, Moody J et al. 2021. The association between men's family planning networks and contraceptive use among their female partners: an egocentric network study in Madagascar. BMC Public Health 21:1209
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Comola M, Prina S. 2021. Treatment effect accounting for network changes. Rev. Econ. Stat. 103:3597604
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Cook KS 2014. Social capital and inequality: the significance of social connections. Handbook of the Social Psychology of Inequality, ed. J McLeod, E Lawler, M Schwalbe 207–27 Dordrecht, Neth: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Cools A, Fernández R, Patacchini E. 2019. Girls, boys, and high achievers. NBER Work. Pap. 25763
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Copeland M, Bartlett B, Fisher JC. 2017. Dynamic associations of network isolation and smoking behavior. Netw. Sci. 5:3257–77
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Cornwell B. 2009. Good health and the bridging of structural holes. Soc. Netw. 31:192–103
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Davezies L, D'Haultfoeuille X, Fougère D 2009. Identification of peer effects using group size variation. Econom. J. 12:3397–413
    [Google Scholar]
  46. DiMaggio P, Garip F. 2012. Network effects and social inequality. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 38:93–118
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Dowd TJ, Pinheiro DL. 2013. The ties among the notes: the social capital of jazz musicians in three metro areas. Work Occup 40:4431–64
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Duxbury SW. 2021a. Diagnosing multicollinearity in exponential random graph models. Sociol. Methods Res. 50:2491–530
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Duxbury SW. 2021b. The problem of scaling in exponential random graph models. Sociol. Methods Res. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124120986178
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
  50. Egami N. 2020. Identification of causal diffusion effects under structural stationarity. arXiv:1810.07858 [stat.ME]
  51. Entwisle B, Faust K, Rindfuss RR, Kaneda T. 2007. Networks and contexts: variation in the structure of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 112:51495–533
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Estrada J, Huynh KP, Jacho-Chavez DT, Sanchez-Aragon L. 2021. On the identification and estimation of endogenous peer effects in multiplex networks Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Emory Univ. Atlanta, GA: https://kphuynh.pages.iu.edu/rsch/multiplex_ecomt.pdf
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Everett M, Borgatti SP. 2005. Ego network betweenness. Soc. Netw. 27:131–38
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Everett MG, Valente TW. 2016. Bridging, brokerage and betweenness. Soc. Netw. 44:202–8
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Feld SL. 1981. The focused organization of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 86:51015–35
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Feld SL. 1982. Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. Am. Sociol. Rev. 47:6797801
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Fernandez RM, Weinberg N. 1997. Sifting and sorting: personal contacts and hiring in a retail bank. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62:6883–902
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Fisher JC. 2019. Social space diffusion: applications of a latent space model to diffusion with uncertain ties. Sociol. Methodol. 49:1258–94
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Fortin B, Yazbeck M. 2015. Peer effects, fast food consumption and adolescent weight gain. J. Health Econ. 42:125–38
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Fowler JH, Dawes CT, Christakis NA. 2009. Model of genetic variation in human social networks. PNAS 106:61720–24
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Freeman LC. 2004. The Development of Social Network Analysis. A Study in the Sociology of Science Vancouver, BC: Empirical
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Friedkin NE, Cook KS. 1990. Peer group influence. Sociol. Methods Res. 19:1122–43
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Friedkin NE, Johnsen EC. 2011. Social Influence Network Theory Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Gest SD, Davidson AJ, Rulison KL, Moody J, Welsh JA. 2007. Features of groups and status hierarchies in girls’ and boys’ early adolescent peer networks. New Dir. Child Adolesc. Dev. 2007:11843–60
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Goldsmith-Pinkham P, Imbens GW. 2013. Social networks and the identification of peer effects. J. Bus. Econ. Stat. 31:3253–64
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Goodreau SM. 2007. Advances in exponential random graph (p*) models applied to a large social network. Soc. Netw. 29:2231–48
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Goodreau SM, Kitts JA, Morris M. 2009. Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography 46:1103–25
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Gould RV, Fernandez RM. 1989. Structures of mediation: a formal approach to brokerage in transaction networks. Sociol. Methodol. 19:89126
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Graham BS. 2008. Identifying social interactions through conditional variance restrictions. Econometrica 76:3643–60
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Granovetter MS. 1973. The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78:61360–80
    [Google Scholar]
  71. Greenberg J. 2021. Social network positions, peer effects, and evaluation updating: an experimental test in the entrepreneurial context. Organ. Sci. 32:51174–92
    [Google Scholar]
  72. Handcock MS, Gile K. 2007. Modeling social networks with sampled or missing data. arXiv:1010.0891 [stat.AP]
  73. Handcock MS, Hunter DR, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Morris M 2008. statnet: Software tools for the representation, visualization, analysis and simulation of network data. J. Stat. Softw 24:111
    [Google Scholar]
  74. He R, Zheng T. 2015. GLMLE: graph-limited enabled fast computation for fitting exponential random graph models to large social networks. Soc. Netw. Anal. Min. 5:8
    [Google Scholar]
  75. Hernán MA, Robins JM. 2020. Causal Inference: What If Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC
    [Google Scholar]
  76. Hsieh CS, Lee L. 2016. A social interactions model with endogenous friendship formation and selectivity. J. Appl. Econom. 31:2301–19
    [Google Scholar]
  77. Hsieh CS, Lee L, Boucher V. 2020. Specification and estimation of network formation and network interaction models with the exponential probability distribution. Quant. Econ. 11:41349–90
    [Google Scholar]
  78. Hunter DR, Handcock MS. 2006. Inference in curved exponential family models for networks. J. Comput. Graph. Stat. 15:3565–83
    [Google Scholar]
  79. Hunter DR, Handcock MS, Butts CT, Goodreau SM, Morris M. 2008. ergm: A package to fit, simulate and diagnose exponential-family models for networks. J. Stat. Softw. 24:31–29
    [Google Scholar]
  80. Imbens GW, Rubin DB. 2015. Causal Inference for Statistics, Social, and Biomedical Sciences: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  81. Jiang S, Gao Q, Chen H, Roco MC. 2014. The roles of sharing, transfer, and public funding in nanotechnology knowledge-diffusion networks. J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 66:51017–29
    [Google Scholar]
  82. Kitts JA, Leal DF. 2021. What is(n't) a friend? Dimensions of the friendship concept among adolescents. Soc. Netw. 66:161–70
    [Google Scholar]
  83. Kitts JA, Quintane E 2020. Rethinking social networks in the era of computational social science. Oxford Handbook of Social Networks R Light, J Moody 71–97 Oxford, UK: Oxford Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  84. Kossinets G, Watts DJ. 2009. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. Am. J. Sociol. 115:2405–50
    [Google Scholar]
  85. Krackhardt D. 1987. Cognitive social structures. Soc. Netw. 9:2109–34
    [Google Scholar]
  86. Krivitsky PN, Morris M. 2017. Inference for social network models from egocentrically sampled data, with application to understanding persistent racial disparities in HIV prevalence in the US. Ann. Appl. Stat. 11:142755
    [Google Scholar]
  87. Laumann EO. 1965. Subjective social distance and urban occupational stratification. Am. J. Sociol. 71:126–36
    [Google Scholar]
  88. Lazarsfeld PF, Merton RK 1954. Friendship as a social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and Control in Modern Society M Berger, T Abel, CH Page 18–66 New York: Van Nostrand
    [Google Scholar]
  89. Lee L. 2007. Identification and estimation of econometric models with group interactions, contextual factors and fixed effects. J. Econom. 140:2333–74
    [Google Scholar]
  90. Lee Y, Ogburn EL. 2020. Network dependence can lead to spurious associations and invalid inference. arXiv:1908.00520 [stat.AP]
  91. Leifeld P, Cranmer SJ. 2019. A theoretical and empirical comparison of the temporal exponential random graph model and the stochastic actor-oriented model. Netw. Sci. 7:120–51
    [Google Scholar]
  92. Leszczensky L, Pink S. 2015. Ethnic segregation of friendship networks in school: testing a rational-choice argument of differences in ethnic homophily between classroom- and grade-level networks. Soc. Netw. 42:18–26
    [Google Scholar]
  93. Leszczensky L, Pink S. 2017. Intra- and inter-group friendship choices of Christian, Muslim, and non-religious youth in Germany. Eur. Sociol. Rev. 33:172–83
    [Google Scholar]
  94. Lin N 2001. Building a network theory of social capital. Social Capital N Lin, K Cook, RS Burt 3–30 London: Routledge
    [Google Scholar]
  95. Lizardo O. 2006. How cultural tastes shape personal networks. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71:5778–807
    [Google Scholar]
  96. Lusher D, Koskinen J, Robins G. 2013. Exponential Random Graph Models for Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  97. Malacarne T. 2017. Rich friends, poor friends: inter-socioeconomic status friendships in secondary school. Socius 3:237802311773699
    [Google Scholar]
  98. Manski CF. 1993. Identification of endogenous social effects: the reflection problem. Rev. Econ. Stud. 60:3531–42
    [Google Scholar]
  99. Marsden PV. 1988. Homogeneity in confiding relations. Soc. Netw. 10:157–76
    [Google Scholar]
  100. Marsden PV. 2002. Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality. Soc. Netw. 24:4407–22
    [Google Scholar]
  101. Marsden PV 2005. Recent developments in network measurements. Models and Methods in Social Network Analysis PJ Carrington, J Scott, S Wasserman 8–30 Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  102. Marsden PV, Friedkin NE. 1993. Network studies of social influence. Sociol. Methods Res. 22:1127–51
    [Google Scholar]
  103. McDermott R, Fowler JH, Christakis NA. 2013. Breaking up is hard to do, unless everyone else is doing it too: social network effects on divorce in a longitudinal sample. Soc. Forces 92:2491–519
    [Google Scholar]
  104. McFarland DA, Moody J, Diehl D, Smith JA, Thomas RJ. 2014. Network ecology and adolescent social structure. Am. Sociol. Rev. 79:61088–121
    [Google Scholar]
  105. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM. 2001. Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27:415–44
    [Google Scholar]
  106. Micklewright J, Schnepf SV, Silva PN. 2012. Peer effects and measurement error: the impact of sampling variation in school survey data (evidence from PISA). Econ. Educ. Rev. 31:61136–42
    [Google Scholar]
  107. Mohnen M. 2021. Stars and brokers: knowledge spillovers among medical scientists. Manag. Sci. 68:4251332
    [Google Scholar]
  108. Molina JL, García-Macías A, Lubbers MJ, Valenzuela-Garcia H. 2020. The embeddedness of social capital in personal networks. Netw. Sci. 8:2189–203
    [Google Scholar]
  109. Moody J, Mucha PJ. 2013. Portrait of political party polarization. Netw. Sci. 1:1119–21
    [Google Scholar]
  110. Moody J, White DR. 2003. Structural cohesion and embeddedness: a hierarchical concept of social groups. Am. Sociol. Rev. 68:1103–27
    [Google Scholar]
  111. Moreno JL. 1934. Who Shall Survive?. A New Approach to the Problem of Human Interrelations Washington, DC: Nerv. Ment. Dis. Publ.
    [Google Scholar]
  112. Morgan SL, Winship C. 2014. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference: Methods and Principles for Social Research Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  113. Mouw T. 2006. Estimating the causal effect of social capital: a review of recent research. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 32:79–102
    [Google Scholar]
  114. Nickell S. 1981. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49:6141726
    [Google Scholar]
  115. Ogburn EL, Shpitser I, Lee Y 2020a. Causal inference, social networks and chain graphs. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A 183:41659–76
    [Google Scholar]
  116. Ogburn EL, Sofrygin O, Diaz I, van der Laan MJ. 2020b. Causal inference for social network data. arXiv:1705.08527 [stat.ME]
  117. O'Malley AJ, Elwert F, Rosenquist JN, Zaslavsky AM, Christakis NA. 2014. Estimating peer effects in longitudinal dyadic data using instrumental variables. Biometrics 70:3506–15
    [Google Scholar]
  118. O'Malley AJ, Marsden PV. 2008. The analysis of social networks. Health Servic. Outcomes Res. Methodol. 8:4222–69
    [Google Scholar]
  119. Padgett JF, Ansell CK. 1993. Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. Am. J. Sociol. 98:61259–319
    [Google Scholar]
  120. Perry BL, Pescosolido BA. 2015. Social network activation: the role of health discussion partners in recovery from mental illness. Soc. Sci. Med. 125:116–28
    [Google Scholar]
  121. Perry BL, Pescosolido BA, Borgatti SP. 2018. Egocentric Network Analysis: Foundations, Methods, and Models Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  122. Pinheiro DL, Dowd TJ. 2009. All that jazz: the success of jazz musicians in three metropolitan areas. Poetics 37:5–6490–506
    [Google Scholar]
  123. Reza S, Manchanda P, Chong JK. 2021. Identification and estimation of endogenous peer effects using partial network data from multiple reference groups. Manag. Sci. 67:85070–105
    [Google Scholar]
  124. Robins G, Snijders TAB, Wang P, Handcock MS, Pattison P. 2007. Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Soc. Netw. 29:2192–215
    [Google Scholar]
  125. Rohrer JM, Keller T, Elwert F. 2021. Proximity can induce diverse friendships: a large randomized classroom experiment. PLOS ONE 16:8e0255097
    [Google Scholar]
  126. Rose CD. 2017. Identification of peer effects through social networks using variance restrictions. Econom. J. 20:3S47–60
    [Google Scholar]
  127. Sacerdote B. 2001. Peer effects with random assignment: results for Dartmouth roommates. Q. J. Econ. 116:2681–704
    [Google Scholar]
  128. Schaefer DR, Haas SA, Bishop NJ. 2012. A dynamic model of US adolescents’ smoking and friendship networks. Am. J. Public Health 102:6e12–18
    [Google Scholar]
  129. Schaefer DR, Light JM, Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Martin CL 2010. Fundamental principles of network formation among preschool children. Soc. Netw 32:161–71
    [Google Scholar]
  130. Scott L. 1991. Social Network Analysis: A Handbook. London, UK: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  131. Shalizi CR, Thomas AC. 2011. Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociol. Methods Res. 40:2211–39
    [Google Scholar]
  132. Small ML. 2007. Racial differences in networks: Do neighborhood conditions matter?. Soc. Sci. Q. 88:2320–43
    [Google Scholar]
  133. Small ML. 2013. Weak ties and the core discussion network: why people regularly discuss important matters with unimportant alters. Soc. Netw. 35:3470–83
    [Google Scholar]
  134. Small ML, Adler L. 2019. The role of space in the formation of social ties. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 45:111–32
    [Google Scholar]
  135. Small ML, Sukhu C. 2016. Because they were there: access, deliberation, and the mobilization of networks for support. Soc. Netw. 47:73–84
    [Google Scholar]
  136. Smith JA, Gauthier GR. 2020. Estimating contextual effects from ego network data. Sociol. Methodol. 50:1215–75
    [Google Scholar]
  137. Snijders TAB. 2001. The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociol. Methodol. 31:1361–95
    [Google Scholar]
  138. Snijders TAB. 2011. Statistical models for social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 37:131–53
    [Google Scholar]
  139. Snijders TAB, Bosker RJ. 1999. Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  140. Snijders TAB, Pattison PE, Robins GL, Handcock MS. 2006. New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociol. Methodol. 36:199–153
    [Google Scholar]
  141. Song L. 2011. Social capital and psychological distress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52:4478–92
    [Google Scholar]
  142. Steglich C, Snijders TAB, Pearson M. 2010. Dynamic networks and behavior: separating selection from influence. Sociol. Methodol. 40:1329–93
    [Google Scholar]
  143. Thoits PA. 2011. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J. Health Soc. Behav. 52:2145–61
    [Google Scholar]
  144. Uzzi B. 1999. Embeddedness in the making of financial capital: how social relations and networks benefit firms seeking financing. Am. Sociol. Rev. 64:4481–505
    [Google Scholar]
  145. van Duijn MAJ, Gile KJ, Handcock MS. 2009. A framework for the comparison of maximum pseudo-likelihood and maximum likelihood estimation of exponential family random graph models. Soc. Netw. 31:152–62
    [Google Scholar]
  146. VanderWeele TJ. 2011. Sensitivity analysis for contagion effects in social networks. Sociol. Methods Res. 40:2240–55
    [Google Scholar]
  147. VanderWeele TJ, An W 2013. Social networks and causal inference. Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research S Morgan 353–74 New York: Springer
    [Google Scholar]
  148. VanderWeele TJ, Ogburn EL, Tchetgen Tchetgen EJ 2012. Why and when “flawed” social network analyses still yield valid tests of no contagion. Stat. Politics Policy 3:12151–60
    [Google Scholar]
  149. Waldinger F. 2012. Peer effects in science: evidence from the dismissal of scientists in Nazi Germany. Rev. Econ. Stud. 79:838–61
    [Google Scholar]
  150. Wasserman S, Faust K. 1994. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
    [Google Scholar]
  151. Wasserman S, Pattison P. 1996. Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs and p*. Psychometrika 61:3401–25
    [Google Scholar]
  152. Whyte WF. 1943. Street Corner Society: The Social Structure of an Italian Slum Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
    [Google Scholar]
  153. Wimmer A, Lewis K. 2010. Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. Am. J. Sociol. 116:2583–642
    [Google Scholar]
  154. Yang S, Keller FB, Zheng L. 2016. Social Network Analysis: Methods and Examples London: SAGE
    [Google Scholar]
  155. Yeung R, Nguyen-Hoang P. 2016. Endogenous peer effects: fact or fiction?. J. Educ. Res. 109:137–49
    [Google Scholar]
  156. Zeng Z, Xie Y. 2008. A preference-opportunity-choice framework with applications to intergroup friendship. Am. J. Sociol. 114:3615–48
    [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102100
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-soc-030320-102100
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error