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  August 2013

SOCNET August 2013

Subject:

Re: nodematch and nodefactor

From:

martina morris <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

martina morris <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 8 Aug 2013 09:18:43 -0700

Content-Type:

MULTIPART/MIXED

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

TEXT/PLAIN (302 lines)

*****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****

Weihua,

The "interaction" is between the attributes of node i and the attributes 
of node j.  Imagine the ties crosstabulated by these two attributes.  The 
"main effects" are the relative row and column mean degrees by subgroup. 
The "interaction" effects are the deviations from independence in the 
cells. Homophily is one version of this (higher density on the diagonal), 
but not the only one.

As Christian and I both noted, widely varying group sizes may influence 
the interpretation of the interaction effects if the main effects are 
excluded.

Martina

On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Weihua An wrote:

> Many thanks for the good feedback. Here are last few thoughts from my end.
>
> "When it there is a correlation, you can't just drop the nodefactor
> terms and interpret the nodematch terms naively.  The interpretation
> of nodematch terms will be unclear if, for example, there is a
> difference in the level of homophily for groups that are more (or
> less) active."
>
> If nodefactor is not included, the coefficient for nodematch is the
> log-odds of the presence of ties between actors with same attribute as
> compared to the presence of ties between actors with differential
> attributes. We can also allow for differential homophiliy. In either
> case, the reference category is the presence of ties between actors
> with differential attributes.
>
> The ambiguity regarding the interpretation of nodematch comes when
> nodefactor is included. When nodefactor is included, it adds one
> statistics which is equal to the number of ties that have the active
> factor attribute, including both 0-1 and 1-1 ties, while nodematch
> adds a statistics which is equal to the number of ties that both
> actors share the same attributes including 0-0 and 1-1 ties. The
> sharing of 1-1 ties in the statistics leads nodefactor and nodematch
> to be correlated. The coefficients for the two models (with or without
> nodefactor) will certainly be different because of the correlation.
>
> The question is whether the correlation makes it illegitimate to
> specify a model that includes only the nodematch terms and whether we
> can still properly interpret that model. I think we can, as the
> reference category is clear. In contrast, in the model with nodefactor
> included, the reference category seems not to be that clear (ties
> from/to actors with the passive state of the attribute?). In general,
> the latter is a more interesting model, as the nodefacor term captures
> the inequality effect while the nodematch term captures the
> segregation effect. But this does not imply that an ERGM cannot just
> have the segregation effect.
>
> In our case, almost all nodefactor terms are not significant, because
> of the spatial constrain in the friending process. My co-authors and I
> want to include only just nodematch terms.But we want to hear some
> good counter-arguments before really deciding to do so. Thanks!
>
>
> best,
>
> Weihua
>
> P.s. Even if you look at the literature on main effect and interaction
> effect in regression analysis, there seems not be a good consensus on
> whether the main effect should always be included. In general, yes,
> but it also depends. I think in network case, it may not be necessary
> to always include nodefactor, as the nodematch term is not exactly
> like the interaction term between two variables. If nodefactor is one
> variable, what is the other main variable? How should  we include the
> main effect for that variable?
>
>
> On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 1:44 PM, martina morris <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>> On Wed, 7 Aug 2013, Weihua An wrote:
>>
>>> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I have a similar problem. In my networks, by design each person has a
>>> fixed (or very close) number of connections. That means no main
>>
>>
>> Nice.  This is a perfect example:  if, by design, your nodes have a fixed
>> number of edges, you don't need nodefactor terms.
>>
>>
>>> effects of any covariate will be significant. So our interested is in
>>> segregation in friendship networks. Indeed, we find almost no
>>> covariates has significant predictive effect, but a lot of the
>>> nodematch terms are significant, when both of the terms are included.
>>> We are thinking about dropping the nodefactor terms as well, for
>>> simpler and clearer interpretation.
>>
>>
>> If the variation in edges by group is insignificant, then this is
>> justifiable.
>>
>>
>>> If we keep only the nodematch terms, the base ties will be the
>>> asymmetric ties (i.e., the ties that are between people with different
>>> binary attributes, assuming the factors are binary).
>>
>>
>> You can make the reference category (base) be either level.
>>
>>
>>> If we keep both nodefactor and nodematch, the base ties seem to be the
>>> ties from/to those with the passive attribute (zero in the binary case). So
>>> if our understanding is correct, whether to include nodefactor in a model
>>> depends on what base ties you want to have and what theoretical questions
>>> you want to ask.
>>
>>
>> Not really -- in your case, there is no correlation btwn nodefactor and
>> nodematch (b/c there is essentially no variation in nodefactor).  So
>> dropping the nodefactor term will have no impact on the estimate of
>> nodematch (try it and see if this is true).  But this absence of correlation
>> will not be true in general.  When it there is a correlation, you can't just
>> drop the nodefactor terms and interpret the nodematch terms naively.  The
>> interpretation of nodematch terms will be unclear if, for example, there is
>> a difference in the level of homophily for groups that are more (or less)
>> active.
>>
>> The kind of interpretability you're pointing to here -- the reference
>> category for factor level comparisons -- can be handled by directly setting
>> which factor level to use as a reference category.
>>
>> You haven't mentioned looking at differential homophily, but that's another
>> possible option.
>>
>> best,
>> mm
>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> Weihua
>>>
>>> On Tue, Aug 6, 2013 at 1:16 PM, martina morris <[log in to unmask]>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> *****  To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org  *****
>>>>
>>>> Hi Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> In general, you probably wouldn't want to fit a model with nodematch but
>>>> not
>>>> nodefactor.  It's a bit like fitting an interaction without the main
>>>> effects
>>>> -- to the extent that the two are correlated, the interpretation of the
>>>> terms changes when one is excluded.  If the nodematch becomes
>>>> insignificant
>>>> when nodefactor is added, it could mean a couple of different things.
>>>>
>>>> I'd suggest taking a look at the actual mixing pattern (using the
>>>> "mixingmatrix" function), and getting some sense of what is going on in
>>>> your
>>>> data.
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Martina
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 6 Aug 2013, Jeff Webb wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ***** To join INSNA, visit http://www.insna.org ***** Dear list members,
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm fitting an ergm model to a small network with 20 actors.  The
>>>>> feature
>>>>> of the
>>>>> network in which I'm most interested is homophily among members of a
>>>>> subgroup,
>>>>> designated "ea."  I test this with nodematch("ea"), which is included in
>>>>> the model
>>>>> along with structural terms, edges and GWESP ; the effect is positive
>>>>> and
>>>>> significant.  However, Goodreau et al. (2008) note: "if one is including
>>>>> nodematch
>>>>> terms in a model, one would typically also include nodefactor terms for
>>>>> the same
>>>>> attributes."   When I add nodefactor("ea") to the model, the effect of
>>>>> nodematch("ea") is no longer significant. Any thoughts on when—if
>>>>> ever—one
>>>>> would
>>>>> fit a model using nodematch() without nodefactor()?
>>>>>
>>>>> A related question.  I would also like to fit a tergm model to two waves
>>>>> of the
>>>>> above network.  In this case, unfortunately, the formation part of the
>>>>> model will
>>>>> not converge when I include the interaction term (node match()) along
>>>>> with
>>>>> the
>>>>> main effect, but it will converge if I include only the the interaction
>>>>> term.
>>>>>  Would it be reasonable to leave out the main effect in order to get a
>>>>> coefficient
>>>>> for the interaction?   Thanks in advance for your replies.
>>>>> Jeff
>>>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>>> SOCNET is a
>>>>> service of INSNA, the professional association for social network
>>>>> researchers
>>>>> (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send an email message to
>>>>> [log in to unmask] containing the line UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the
>>>>> body
>>>>> of the
>>>>> message.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ****************************************************************
>>>>  Professor of Sociology and Statistics
>>>>  Director, UWCFAR Sociobehavioral and Prevention Research Core
>>>>  Box 354322
>>>>  University of Washington
>>>>  Seattle, WA 98195-4322
>>>>
>>>>  Office:        (206) 685-3402
>>>>  Dept Office:   (206) 543-5882, 543-7237
>>>>  Fax:           (206) 685-7419
>>>>
>>>> [log in to unmask]
>>>> http://faculty.washington.edu/morrism/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>>> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
>>>> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
>>>> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
>>>> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Weihua (Edward) An
>>>
>>> Assistant Professor of Sociology and Statistics
>>> Indiana University Bloomington
>>> 752 Ballantine Hall
>>> 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue
>>> Bloomington, IN 47405-7103
>>> http://mypage.iu.edu/~weihuaan/
>>>
>>> _____________________________________________________________________
>>> SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
>>> network researchers (http://www.insna.org). To unsubscribe, send
>>> an email message to [log in to unmask] containing the line
>>> UNSUBSCRIBE SOCNET in the body of the message.
>>>
>>
>> ****************************************************************
>>  Professor of Sociology and Statistics
>>  Director, UWCFAR Sociobehavioral and Prevention Research Core
>>  Box 354322
>>  University of Washington
>>  Seattle, WA 98195-4322
>>
>>  Office:        (206) 685-3402
>>  Dept Office:   (206) 543-5882, 543-7237
>>  Fax:           (206) 685-7419
>>
>> [log in to unmask]
>> http://faculty.washington.edu/morrism/
>
>
>
> -- 
> Weihua (Edward) An
>
> Assistant Professor of Sociology and Statistics
> Indiana University Bloomington
> 752 Ballantine Hall
> 1020 East Kirkwood Avenue
> Bloomington, IN 47405-7103
> http://mypage.iu.edu/~weihuaan/
>

****************************************************************
  Professor of Sociology and Statistics
  Director, UWCFAR Sociobehavioral and Prevention Research Core
  Box 354322
  University of Washington
  Seattle, WA 98195-4322

  Office:        (206) 685-3402
  Dept Office:   (206) 543-5882, 543-7237
  Fax:           (206) 685-7419

[log in to unmask]
http://faculty.washington.edu/morrism/

_____________________________________________________________________
SOCNET is a service of INSNA, the professional association for social
network researchers (http://www.insna.org). 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

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