Inhoudsopgave
Week 1................................................................................................................................... 3
1. Lecture - Do contexts make networks?..........................................................................3
2. Literature........................................................................................................................ 8
2.1 Feld - The focused organization of social ties..........................................................8
2.2 Hollinger & Haller - Kinship and social networks in modern societies....................11
2.3 Martinovic, Tubergen & Maas - Changes in immigrants’ social integration during
the stay in the host country..........................................................................................14
Week 2................................................................................................................................. 17
1. Lecture - How big is our social world?..........................................................................17
2. Literature...................................................................................................................... 20
2.1 Milgram - The small world problem........................................................................20
2.2 Watts & Strogatz - Collective dynamics of small-world networks...........................22
2.3 Collins & Chow - It’s a small world.........................................................................23
2.4 Dodds, Muhamad & Wats - An experimental study of search in a global social
network........................................................................................................................ 24
Week 3................................................................................................................................. 25
1. Lecture - Centrality.......................................................................................................25
2. Literatuur...................................................................................................................... 30
2.1 Mintz & Schwartz - Interlocking directorates and interest group formation............30
2.2 Cook, Emerson, Gillmore & Yamagishi - The distribution of power in exchange
networks...................................................................................................................... 34
2.3 Savin-Williams - Dominance hierarchies in groups of early adolescents...............40
2.4 Chase - Individual differences versus social dynamics in the formation of animal
dominance hierarchies................................................................................................43
Week 4................................................................................................................................. 47
1. Lecture - Social capital.................................................................................................47
2. Literature...................................................................................................................... 51
2.1 Granovetter - The strength of weak ties.................................................................51
2.2 Coleman - Social capital in the creation of human capital......................................54
2.3 Burt - The social capital of structural holes............................................................58
2.4 Centola & Macy - Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties..................62
Week 5................................................................................................................................. 68
1. Lecture - Negative networks........................................................................................68
2. Literature...................................................................................................................... 70
2.1 Harrigan & Yap - Avoidance in negative ties: Inhibiting closure, reciprocity and
homophily.................................................................................................................... 70
2.2 Rubineau, Lim & Neblo - Low status rejection: how status hierarchies influence
negative tie formation..................................................................................................73
2.3 Kros, Jaspers & Zalk - Avoidance, antipathy and aggression: A three-wave
longitudinal network study on negative networks, status and heteromisos..................77
Week 6................................................................................................................................. 83
1. Lecture - Better networks, better health?.....................................................................83
2. Literature...................................................................................................................... 86
, 2.1 Coleman, Katz & Menzel - The diffusion of an innovation among physicians........86
2.2 Centola - The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment.............89
2.3 Christakis & Fowler - The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years
.................................................................................................................................... 90
2.4 Liu, King & Bearman - Social influence and the autism epidemic..........................92
Week 7................................................................................................................................. 98
1. Lecture - How much does Facebook affect our lives?..................................................98
2. Literature.................................................................................................................... 101
2.1 Bond, Fariss, Jones, Kramer, Marlow, Settle, Fowler - A 61-million-person
experiment in social influence and political mobilization............................................101
2.2 Kramer, Guillory, Hancock - Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional
contagion through social networks............................................................................102
2.3 Lewis, Gray & Meierhernich - The structure of online activism............................103
2.4 Guilbeault, Becker, Centola - Complex contagions: A decade in review..............104
2.5 Salganik, Dodds & Watts - Experimental study of inequality and unpredictability in
an artificial cultural market.........................................................................................109
Week 8............................................................................................................................... 111
1. Lecture - Criminal networks.......................................................................................111
2. Literature.................................................................................................................... 115
2.1 Baker & Faulkner - ‘’The social organization of conspiracy: illegal networks in the
heavy electrical equipment industry...........................................................................115
2.2 Duijn, Kashirin & Sloot - The relative ineffectiveness of criminal network disruption
.................................................................................................................................. 120
2.3 Varese - The structure and the content of criminal connections: The Russian mafia
in Italy........................................................................................................................ 124
,Week 1
1. Lecture - Do contexts make networks?
All networks are made from
nodes and edges. Yet they
can have very different
structures, even though
they have the same amount
of nodes and edges.
Network can represent
many many things, for example the following:
Our focus will be on the features of social networks, and we will tend particular
attention to the context in which interactions take place → where do ties
emerge?
How do social networks emerge?
Focus theory (Feld): Who interacts with whom is not a question of preference but of extra
individual conditions such as meeting opportunities and foci for contacts. So it is a theory on
the supply of contacts. A focus is defined as a social, psychological, legal or physical entity
around which joint activities are organized. All those related to a focus tend to form a cluster;
loose connections between clusters are either based on less constraining foci, or not on foci
at all.
Individuals whose activities are organized around the same foci will tend to become
interpersonally tied and form a cluster. When the individuals are related they tend to create
foci to organize their joint activities. Thus networks emerge within foci and across foci that
,are shared by individuals. Similarity on certain attributes may lead to selective development
of ties, however, structural features determine much more where interaction will arise than
these similarities.
There are some characteristics of foci:
● Restrictions, such as:
○ Degree of forced interactions
○ time spent
○ compatibility with other foci
● Size
● Degree of local boundedness
● Degree to which boundaries exist
↳ Foci can also overlap, for example when people work in the same
neighbourhood.
→ Another theory on the emergence of networks is balance theory.
Balance theory (Heider): This is also a theory on the emergence of networks. It argues that
individuals strive for (cognitive) balance, also in their relationships. A network is balanced if
the product of the signs of the relationships is positives. Therefore a network has a tendency
for closure:
Balance theory starts from triads (triadic closure), but more complicated networks are
possible (e.g. 4-cycles).
So focus theory and balance theory both give different answers to the following question:
When does network closure emerge (or where do new ties form)?
● Balance theory: The focal actor strives for cognitive balance.
● Focus theory: Actors become involved in relationships because they share at least
one focus.
Focus vs. Balance
● Focus theory can be applied to large networks. Balance theory fits best in the
analysis of small networks (triads).
● Focus theory argues for instance that when network members are all in the same
focus, and if this focus is more restrictive, the network members will be more
interconnected – balance theory does not take into account any contextual condition
Bridges in networks
A bridge is the name to a specific edge in a network, a bridge connects two separate
networks that are otherwise not connected. In the real world are bridges very rare, because
we are all connected in very different ways.
,Local bridge: Without the local bridge, the distance between the - now connected - nodes
would be much larger (the small edge in the second figure). So it shortens the distance or
the number of steps between clusters of networks.
Social capital
Social capital is a theory on the creation and returns of relationships.
Some people have more than others. Different forms of capital are resources for individuals
for achieving a good life. These resources are also dimensions of social stratification. The
different kinds of capital are:
● Financial capital
● Human capital
● Symbolic/cultural capital
● Social capital (added by sociologists; Weber)
Important difference between social capital and other forms of capital:
↳The rights of ownership of social capital are not by one person, yet by at
least two persons. So social resources are second order resources.
You cannot decide on your own to employ your social capital. The value of the social capital
depends on the resources of the others (the value of 2order resources). Maybe you could
achieve the same thing with your other capital, but you could also achieve it with your social
capital.
↳ For example: If you want to gain access to some exclusive club you could buy
your way in, or know someone that’s already in.
The theory of social capital is important because it gives a social network a meaning. We
invest in our relationships with others because we expect some benefit of it. Individuals
employ their own wellbeing while taking expected future benefits into account.
, Could be maintaining friendships because you know they could offer emotional
support down the line. Social capital is based largely on alleged reciprocity, if you
support now, you expect support later.
Social capital always have these elements:
(No matter what kind of help is provided – social capital can be described in the following
dimensions:)
● the presence of others
● their ability to help
● their willingness to help
● the structure of the network, e.g. the particular position of the focal actor ‘ego’
(“structure is an asset in its own right” Ron Burt, 2001)
Social networks in modern societies
● Focus theory: there are different restrictions on the families, for example: ‘distance to
the mother’
● There is no comprehensive encompassing explanation for these country differences.
There are more contextual arguments provided than arguments on preferences.
Interethnic contacts
Immigrant integration
There are different forms of immigrant integration:
● Economic or structural integration: incorporation of immigrants in the education & job
market.
● Cultural integration: adoption of the values/customs language of the receiving
society.
● Social integration: contacts between immigrants and natives ‘’interethnic contacts’’.
Social integration can have implications for the economic and cultural integration of
immigrants. Interethnic contacts can thus be seen as a form of social capital (resources,
information). Contacts between immigrants and natives decrease prejudice and conflict and
increase social cohesion.
Explanations for interethnic marriage
● We have stronger and weaker ties.
● Explanations for interethnic marriage
○ Individual level: preferences
○ Contextual level: structural constraints: opportunities and third parties
Preferences
● People prefer to interact with others with whom they share certain characteristics.
○ Similar cultural resources: similar lifestyle, norms, values, interests,
knowledge, religion.
○ Similar socio-economic position: education, profession, income
■ Higher socio-economic position is more desirable in the case of
partner / marriage.
There is lots of empirical confirmation for the preference theory. Homophily is the principle
that contact between similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people.
Opportunities
