Egocentric and sociocentric measures of network centrality

Egocentric centrality measures (for data on a node’s first-order zone) parallel to Freeman’s [Social Networks 1 (1979) 215] centrality measures for complete (sociocentric) network data are considered. Degree-based centrality is in principle identical for egocentric and sociocentric network data. A closeness measure is uninformative for egocentric data, since all geodesic distances from ego to other nodes in the first-order zone are 1 by definition. The extent to which egocentric and sociocentric versions of Freeman’s betweenness centrality measure correspond is explored empirically. Across seventeen diverse networks, that correspondence is found to be relatively close—though variations in egocentric network composition do lead to some notable differences in egocentric and sociocentric betweennness. The findings suggest that research design has a relatively modest impact on assessing the relative betweenness of nodes, and that a betweenness measure based on egocentric network data could be a reliable substitute for Freeman’s betweenness measure when it is not practical to collect complete network data. However, differences in the research methods used in sociocentric and egocentric studies could lead to additional differences in the respective betweenness centrality measures.     

Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality

Eigenvectors, and the related centrality measure Bonacich's c(β), have advantages over graph-theoretic measures like degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality: they can be used in signed and valued graphs and the beta parameter in c(β) permits the calculation of power measures for a wider variety of types of exchange. Degree, betweenness, and closeness centralities are defined only for classically simple graphs—those with strictly binary relations between vertices. Looking only at these classical graphs, where eigenvectors and graph–theoretic measures are competitors, eigenvector centrality is designed to be distinctively different from mere degree centrality when there are some high degree positions connected to many low degree others or some low degree positions are connected to a few high degree others. Therefore, it will not be distinctively different from degree when positions are all equal in degree (regular graphs) or in core-periphery structures in which high degree positions tend to be connected to each other.     

Bridging: Locating critical connectors in a network

This paper proposes several measures for bridging in networks derived from Granovetter's (1973) insight that links which reduce distances in a network are important structural bridges. Bridging is calculated by systematically deleting links and calculating the resultant changes in network cohesion (measured as the inverse average path length). The average change for each node's links provides an individual level measure of bridging. We also present a normalized version which controls for network size and a network-level bridging index. Bridging properties are demonstrated on hypothetical networks, empirical networks, and a set of 100 randomly generated networks to show how the bridging measure correlates with existing network measures such as degree, personal network density, constraint, closeness centrality, betweenness centrality, and vitality. Bridging and the accompanying methodology provide a family of new network measures useful for studying network structure, network dynamics, and network effects on substantive behavioral phenomenon.     

Bridging,brokerage and betweenness

Valente and Fujimoto (2010) proposed a measure of brokerage in networks based on Granovetter's classic work on the strength of weak ties. Their paper identified the need for finding node-based measures of brokerage that consider the entire network structure, not just a node's local environment. The measures they propose, aggregating the average change in cohesion for a node's links, has several limitations. In this paper we review their method and show how the idea can be modified by using betweenness centrality as an underpinning concept. We explore the properties of the new method and provide point, normalized, and network level variations. This new approach has two advantages, first it provides a more robust means to normalize the measure to control for network size, and second, the modified measure is computationally less demanding making it applicable to larger networks.     

Categorical attribute based centrality: E–I and G–F centrality

In a paper examining informal networks and organizational crisis, Krackhardt and Stern (1988) proposed a measure assessing the extent to which relations in a network were internal to a group as opposed to external. They called their measure the E–I index. The measure is now in wide use and is implemented in standard network packages such as UCINET ( Borgatti et al., 2002). The measure is based on a partition-based degree centrality measure and as such can be extended to other centrality measures and group level data. We explore extensions to closeness, betweenness and eigenvector centrality, and show how to apply the technique to sets of subgroups that do not form a partition. In addition, the extension to betweenness suggests a linkage to the Gould and Fernandez brokerage measures, which we explore.     

The structure of global centrality measures

The aim of this article is to identify and analyse the logic and structure of centrality measures applied to social networks. On the basis of the article by Borgatti and Everett, identifying the latent functions of centrality, we first use a survey of personal networks with 450 cases to perform an empirical study of the differences and correspondences between degree, closeness and betweenness centrality in personal networks. Then, we examine the correspondences between the three global indicators in each type of centrality: the maximum value, the mean value and the hierarchy or centralization. The results provide a better understanding of the centrality indicators of networks and the reality that they express in an empirical context.     

Induced, endogenous and exogenous centrality

Centrality measures are based upon the structural position an actor has within the network. Induced centrality, sometimes called vitality measures, take graph invariants as an overall measure and derive vertex level measures by deleting individual nodes or edges and examining the overall change. By taking the sum of standard centrality measures as the graph invariant we can obtain measures which examine how much centrality an individual node contributes to the centrality of the other nodes in the network, we call this exogenous centrality. We look at exogenous measures of degree, closeness and betweenness.     

Embedding time in positions: Temporal measures of centrality for social network analysis

Digital data enable researchers to obtain fine-grained temporal information about social interactions. However, positional measures used in social network analysis (e.g., degree centrality, reachability, betweenness) are not well suited to these time-stamped interaction data because they ignore sequence and time of interactions. While new temporal measures have been developed, they consider time and sequence separately. Building on formal algebra, we propose three temporal equivalents to positional network measures that incorporate time and sequence. We demonstrate how these temporal equivalents can be applied to an empirical context and compare the results with their static counterparts. We show that, compared to their temporal counterparts, static measures applied to interaction networks obscure meaningful differences in the way in which individuals accumulate alters over time, conceal potential disconnections in the network by overestimating reachability, and bias the distribution of betweenness centrality, which can affect the identification of key individuals in the network.     

Resistance distance,closeness, and betweenness

In a seminal paper Stephenson and Zelen (1989) rethought centrality in networks proposing an information-theoretic distance measure among nodes in a network. The suggested information distance diverges from the classical geodesic metric since it is sensible to all paths (not just to the shortest ones) and it diminishes as soon as there are more routes between a pair of nodes. Interestingly, information distance has a clear interpretation in electrical network theory that was missed by the proposing authors. When a fixed resistor is imagined on each edge of the graph, information distance, known as resistance distance in this context, corresponds to the effective resistance between two nodes when a battery is connected across them. Here, we review resistance distance, showing once again, with a simple proof, that it matches information distance. Hence, we interpret both current-flow closeness and current-flow betweenness centrality in terms of resistance distance. We show that this interpretation has semantic, theoretical, and computational benefits.     

Closeness centrality via the Condorcet principle

We provide a characterization of closeness centrality in the class of distance-based centralities. To this end, we introduce a natural property, called majority comparison, that states that out of two adjacent nodes the one closer to more nodes is more central. We prove that any distance-based centrality that satisfies this property gives the same ranking in every graph as closeness centrality. The axiom is inspired by the interpretation of the graph as an election in which nodes are both voters and candidates and their preferences are determined by the distances to the other nodes.     

Structural effects of network sampling coverage I: Nodes missing at random

Network measures assume a census of a well-bounded population. This level of coverage is rarely achieved in practice, however, and we have only limited information on the robustness of network measures to incomplete coverage. This paper examines the effect of node-level missingness on 4 classes of network measures: centrality, centralization, topology and homophily across a diverse sample of 12 empirical networks. We use a Monte Carlo simulation process to generate data with known levels of missingness and compare the resulting network scores to their known starting values. As with past studies (0035 and 0135), we find that measurement bias generally increases with more missing data. The exact rate and nature of this increase, however, varies systematically across network measures. For example, betweenness and Bonacich centralization are quite sensitive to missing data while closeness and in-degree are robust. Similarly, while the tau statistic and distance are difficult to capture with missing data, transitivity shows little bias even with very high levels of missingness. The results are also clearly dependent on the features of the network. Larger, more centralized networks are generally more robust to missing data, but this is especially true for centrality and centralization measures. More cohesive networks are robust to missing data when measuring topological features but not when measuring centralization. Overall, the results suggest that missing data may have quite large or quite small effects on network measurement, depending on the type of network and the question being posed.     

Measurement error in network data: A re-classification

Research on measurement error in network data has typically focused on missing data. We embed missing data, which we term false negative nodes and edges, in a broader classification of error scenarios. This includes false positive nodes and edges and falsely aggregated and disaggregated nodes. We simulate these six measurement errors using an online social network and a publication citation network, reporting their effects on four node-level measures – degree centrality, clustering coefficient, network constraint, and eigenvector centrality. Our results suggest that in networks with more positively-skewed degree distributions and higher average clustering, these measures tend to be less resistant to most forms of measurement error. In addition, we argue that the sensitivity of a given measure to an error scenario depends on the idiosyncracies of the measure's calculation, thus revising the general claim from past research that the more ‘global’ a measure, the less resistant it is to measurement error. Finally, we anchor our discussion to commonly-used networks in past research that suffer from these different forms of measurement error and make recommendations for correction strategies.     

Node centrality in weighted networks: Generalizing degree and shortest paths

Ties often have a strength naturally associated with them that differentiate them from each other. Tie strength has been operationalized as weights. A few network measures have been proposed for weighted networks, including three common measures of node centrality: degree, closeness, and betweenness. However, these generalizations have solely focused on tie weights, and not on the number of ties, which was the central component of the original measures. This paper proposes generalizations that combine both these aspects. We illustrate the benefits of this approach by applying one of them to Freeman’s EIES dataset.     

DOES WHOM YOU KNOW MATTER? UNRAVELING THE INFLUENCE OF PEERS' NETWORK ATTRIBUTES ON ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

This paper examines how students' network size, distance, prestige, and connections to influential individuals impact academic performance. Larger and closer networks facilitate information exchange, but may also increase distractions that decrease productivity. We resolve this ambiguity using administrative data from a business school that features random assignment of students to multiple overlapping sets of peers, allowing us to calculate degree, closeness, eigenvector, and Katz‐Bonacich centrality for each node. We find that increasing closeness centrality within the network negatively affects student performance measured by grade point average, suggesting that synergy reduction and information processing costs outweigh benefits from greater information access. (JEL I23, L14, L23)     

A New Model for Information Diffusion in Heterogeneous Social Networks

This paper discusses a new model for the diffusion of information through heterogeneous social networks. In earlier models, when information was given by one actor to another the transmitter did not retain the information. The new model is an improvement on earlier ones because it allows a transmitter of information to retain that information after telling it to somebody else. Consequently, the new model allows more actors to have information during the information diffusion process. The model provides predictions of diffusion times in a given network at the global, dyadic, and individual levels. This leads to straightforward generalizations of network measures, such as closeness centrality and betweenness centrality, for research problems that focus on the efficiency of information transfer in a network. We analyze in detail how information diffusion times and centrality measures depend on a series of network measures, such as degrees and bridges. One important finding is that predictions about the time actors need to spread information in the network differ considerably between the new and old models, while the predictions about the time needed to receive information hardly differ. Finally, some cautionary remarks are made about using the model in empirical research.     

Social networkers: Measuring and examining individual differences in propensity to connect with others

The research examined individual differences in people's propensity to connect with others (PCO). A measure of PCO, with components for making friends (strong ties), making acquaintances (weak ties), and joining others (bridging ties), was developed and tested in two studies involving 144 undergraduates and 197 health-care employees. PCO and its components were significantly positively associated with social network characteristics (including size, betweenness centrality, and brokerage) and indicators of personal adjustment including support received, attainment, well-being, influence, and suggestion-making. PCO had effects beyond those of major personality traits, and PCO components displayed distinctive relationships with work network characteristics.     

Are women less career centric than men? Structure,culture, and identity investments

Some work/family scholars assume that gender differences in career centrality (i.e. the importance of career to one's identity) are a result of differential job characteristics and family demands; others trace these differences to pre-existing cultural orientations. Using the 2010 Generations of Talent data from 9210 employees working in 11 countries for 7 multinational companies, this study verifies the existence of gender differences in career centrality and explores structural and cultural explanations. Gender disparities in career centrality are modest, indicating that women's and men's identification with careers is more similar than is commonly asserted; the most pronounced (but still relatively small) disparities are observed in Japan and China. A large portion of the gender gap is explained by job characteristics, supporting structural explanations. Family demands contribute to explaining the gap as well, but the findings are unexpected: having minor children is associated with higher career centrality for both women and men. In support of cultural explanations, however, traditional gender beliefs are associated with lower career centrality, especially for women, while two job characteristics (job variety and peer relations) have distinct links to career centrality for women and men. Findings challenge the common assumption that family identities compete against work identities.     

The social networks of academic performance in a student context of poverty in Mexico

Purpose: To describe the structure of the social network of junior high school students from a low socioeconomic status and assess the association between centrality measurements and academic performance. In the centrality positions (eigenvector, closeness, degree, and betweenness), the female gender and “only study” were significant predictors of high academic performance. The density of the student social network was presented by homophilic associations that hint at the existence of subcultures at school.     

A Graph-theoretic perspective on centrality

The concept of centrality is often invoked in social network analysis, and diverse indices have been proposed to measure it. This paper develops a unified framework for the measurement of centrality. All measures of centrality assess a node's involvement in the walk structure of a network. Measures vary along four key dimensions: type of nodal involvement assessed, type of walk considered, property of walk assessed, and choice of summary measure. If we cross-classify measures by type of nodal involvement (radial versus medial) and property of walk assessed (volume versus length), we obtain a four-fold polychotomization with one cell empty which mirrors Freeman's 1979 categorization. At a more substantive level, measures of centrality summarize a node's involvement in or contribution to the cohesiveness of the network. Radial measures in particular are reductions of pair-wise proximities/cohesion to attributes of nodes or actors. The usefulness and interpretability of radial measures depend on the fit of the cohesion matrix to the one-dimensional model. In network terms, a network that is fit by a one-dimensional model has a core-periphery structure in which all nodes revolve more or less closely around a single core. This in turn implies that the network does not contain distinct cohesive subgroups. Thus, centrality is shown to be intimately connected with the cohesive subgroup structure of a network.     

Reinterpreting network measures for models of disease transmission

In the wake of AIDS and HIV, a better framework is needed to model the pattern of contacts between infectious and susceptible individuals. Several network measures have been defined elsewhere which quantify the distance between 2 nodes, and the centrality of a node, in a network. Stephenson and Zelen (S-Z), however, have recently presented a new measure based on statistical estimation theory and applied it to a network of AIDS cases. This paper shows that the closeness measure proposed by S-Z is equivalent to the effective conductance in an electrical network, fits the measure into the existing theory of percolation, and provides a more efficient algorithm for computing S-Z closeness. The S-Z methodology is compared with the closeness measures of maximal flow, first passage time, and random hitting time. Computational problems associated with the measure are discussed in a closing section.