LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for SOCNET Archives


SOCNET Archives

SOCNET Archives


SOCNET@LISTS.UFL.EDU


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SOCNET Home

SOCNET Home

SOCNET  December 2003

SOCNET December 2003

Subject:

summary of suggestions on logistic regression analyses

From:

"Reifman, Alan" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Reifman, Alan

Date:

Tue, 2 Dec 2003 17:45:09 -0600

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/  *****

I have compiled the list of suggestions I received regarding my inquiry about using logistic regression to analyze predictors of whether a link exists between two individuals in a network.  I first reprint my original inquiry below, which is followed by the responses.  Thanks to everyone for their replies.  Alan Reifman
------------------------------------------------------------

Original Inquiry:

I am working on a research project that has the following (hypothetical) design.  Say that we have 10 individuals in some community and we want to predict whether a friendship exists between each pair of individuals.  A matrix of non-directional friendship links (1 = yes, 0 = no) can be formed with 45 elements (i.e., a lower-diagonal matrix with no self ties).  I'm a relative newcomer to quantitative network studies, but the seemingly simple analytic design I came up with was to create a data set with 45 lines of data (one for each potential pairing).  The dependent variable on each line would be the aforementioned 1 or 0 for existence of a friendship.  Each line would also contain several predictor variables for the potential pair, some dichotomous (e.g., do they work for the same firm?, again scored 1 or 0) and some quantitative (e.g., how many blocks apart do they live?).  One could then perform a logistic regression with the dichotomous DV and the various predictor variables.  An odds ratio associated with each predictor would reveal whether the predictor appeared to contribute to pairs' being friends with each other.  I just finished reading Wasserman and Faust's "Social Network Analysis" (in toto) and I did not find any analytic strategy like the one I described above (as best I could tell).  Wasserman and Faust focused more on blockmodels, popularity and reciprocity parameters, etc. I do recognize that the design I've proposed has a potential problem with non-independence of observations (i.e., the same individual is implicated in several potential pairings).  My question is twofold:  (a) putting aside the independence issue for the moment, does my design sound reasonable? and (b) could the independence problem be overcome (at least to some extent) by using alpha levels more stringent than the usual .05 in order to adjust for the (presumably) inflated degrees of freedom in my design?

Thanks,
Alan Reifman

------------------------------------------------------------
REPLIES
------------------------------------------------------------

Your design sounds reasonable although purebred statisticians would be infuriated at my saying this.  Good news is that you can take care of the second and third order correlations using the fixed effects or bilinear mixed effects approaches.  See e.g. Peter Hoff's work and bibliography therein:

Hoff, P.D. "Bilinear Mixed-Effects Models for Dyadic Data"
http://www.stat.washington.edu/hoff/Preprints/dyadic.pdf

Gueorgi Kossinets
------------------------------------------------------------

Look at:  http://kentucky.psych.uiuc.edu/pstar/

Miller McPherson
------------------------------------------------------------

This is similar to an approach we have used and validated
what you are doing is consstructing a similarity index
it works better if you do it in terms of relative similarity
so you have a matrix A that is people by attributes such that each cell is a 1 if that person as that attribute
then  the sum across k of (Aik*Ajk)/ sum across k (Aik)
where i and j are people and k the attributes

see also the papers on construct - where we used this but interpreted the attributes as knowledge

Kathleen Carley, 1990. "Group Stability: A Socio-Cognitive Approach." in Advancesw in Group Processes, eds. E. Lawler, B. Markovsky, C. Ridgeway & H. Walker, Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Vol. 7, pp. 1-44.

Kathleen Carley
------------------------------------------------------------

probably someone told you already to have a look at p*-models (Andersen, Wasserman and Crouch 1999, Wasserman und Pattison 1996, based on ideas of Frank and Strauss 1986 and Holland and Leinhardt 1981). But no one posted an answer to the list yet! These are logit regression models for social networks. You predict the probability for the existence of a tie between two actors using actors attributes as well as indices of social network analysis (e.g. actors' degrees, transitivity, density). In contrast to usual logit models you can model ties as not independent: A good model for the prediction of a link from i to j considers for example, if there is a tie from j to i and how large the tendency towards symmetry is in the network. (As you have undirected ties only, you might consider a similar procedure regarding transitivity!).

A good article that takes into account different levels of network data (in the sense of multilevel modelling: e.g. density is a variable on the level of the whole network, degree an actor level variable) is Hummel and Sodeur
(1997).

Anderson, C.J., Wasserman, S. & Brouch, B. (1999). A p* primer: Logit models for social networks. Social Networks, 21, 37-66.

Frank, O & Strauss, D. (1986). Markov Graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 832-842.

Holland, P.W. & Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 33-65.

Hummell, H.J. & Sodeur, W. (1997). Structural analysis of social networks with respect to different levels of aggregation. Mathématiques, Informatique et Sciences Humaines, 35, 37-60.

Wasserman, S. und Pattison, P. (1996) Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov random graphs and p*. Psychometrika, 60, 401-426.

Dr. Mark Trappmann
------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting that you arived at a logistic model for social network independently! However, the p1 model described in Wasserman and Faust (p. 614) can also be expressed as a logistic regression model because of the general relationship between log-linear models and logistic regression models (the former fits cell frequencies the latter fits a binary outcome), so this general approach has been around for awhile and there is a fair amount of work in this area.  Scan the social network literature for mention
of the p* and p2 framework.

Sam Field
------------------------------------------------------------

Your study design is fine and quite a few studies like this have been done in the past. The issue of non-independence of observations is not the only one you would have to struggle with when conducting this type of analysis. While there are many methods available, try the simplest approach commonly referred to as QAP (Quadratic Assignment Procedure). You can find this option in UCINET. You may want to refer to the following papers for a detailed explanations of this technique:

Krackhardt, D. 1988. Predicting with networks: Nonparamatric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10: 359-381.

Gulati, R. 1995. Social structure and alliance formation patterns: A longitudinal analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 619-652.

Andrew V. Shipilov
------------------------------------------------------------

I began doing dyadic analyses of the kind you mentioned backed in the mid-1980s. Gulati, among others, drew on these analyses.  One representative publication is

Mizruchi, Mark S. 1989. "Similarity of political behavior among large American corporations." American Journal of Sociology 95:401-424.

That paper uses a fixed effects approach to handle the non-independence problem.  Subsequently, on Krackhardt's suggestion,  I used quadratic assignment.  For analyses using that, as well as detailed discussions about the entire issue of dyadic network analyses, see

Mizruchi, Mark S. 1992. The Structure of Corporate Political Action: Interfirm Relations and Their Consequences. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mark S. Mizruchi
------------------------------------------------------------

You may have got this possible answer to your question already, but I think the p2 model (an extension of the p1 model described in Wasserman & Faust) would suit your needs. It is a kind of - specific - logistic regression model that deals with dependence between relations from and to the same individuals. The model is implemented in StOCNET, which is free software. For now, I refer you to StOCNET's website, where you can find more documentation on the software and on the p2 model (among other models). http://stat.gamma.rug.nl/stocnet

Marijtje van Duijn

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.sfu.ca/~insna/). To unsubscribe, send
an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008, Week 62
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTS.UFL.EDU

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager