Complexity and Social Networks Blog

The dominant way to measure relations in social network analysis (SNA) is still based on self-report data. I predict that over the next 10-15 years there will be a dramatic shift in how this foundational construct is measured, from self-report to behavioral measures. The reason for this is simply that people leave vastly more traces of their behaviors now than they used to.

We see an opening wedge of studies using observational data—e.g., see Tyler et al. and Diesner and Carley, which used e-mail data. However, if you look at sociology and OB publications (for ex), the vast majority of social network articles still rely on self report data. Further, most of those papers interpret the results as if they reflect actual behavior.

This is potentially troubling, because research suggests that the correlation between self report and behavior is surprisingly low. The classic work in this vein comes in a series of studies co-authored by Bernard Killworth, and sometimes Sailer. (Note that Freeman et al. found that people do better at recalling long term social structure than short term interactions.)

Putting aside the correlation between observational and self-report data, these are distinct constructs, and which one is interested in depends on ones research questions. Clearly, in certain cases behavior is all that matters—if you are interested in the transmission of STD’s, then a key question is how to eliminate the deviation between self reports and actual behavior (e.g., see Brewer et al.). However, those deviations, as Corman and others have explored, are not random. Even in the context of sexual behavior, one would guess that recall is correlated with (for example) emotional significance. This is not so interesting, perhaps, in understanding the spread of sexual diseases, but might be interesting for other research questions.

In any case, I do think that this is an area that requires a great deal more attention over the next few years. In particular, there needs to be more attention to (1) the link between different types of interaction behaviors and self-reported relations, and (2) the interaction between the two (e.g., it may matter if I talk a lot with my friend or not, not just whether they are (a) someone I see as a friend, or (b) someone I talk a lot with).

(Note, btw, that this entry benefited from a recent exchange on the Socnet listserv on “CSS & ‘A Million Little Pieces’�)

References:
Killworth, P. D. and H. R. Bernard. 1976. Informant accuracy in social network data. Human Organization 35:269-286.

Bernard, H. R. and P. D. Killworth. 1979. Informant accuracy in social network data II. Human Communication Research 4:3-18.

Killworth, P. D. and H. R. Bernard. 1979. Informant accuracy in social network data III: A comparison of triadic structures in behavioral and cognitive data. Social Networks 2:19-46.

Bernard, H. R., P. D. Killworth, and L. Sailer. 1980. Informant accuracy in social network research IV: A comparison of clique-level structure in behavioral and cognitive data. Social Networks 2:191-218.

Bernard, H. R., P.D. Killworth and L. Sailer. 1982. Informant accuracy in social-network data V: An experimental attempt to predict actual communication from recall data. Social Science Research 11:30-66.

Joshua R. Tyler, Dennis M. Wilkinson, Bernardo A. Huberman, Email as Spectroscopy: Automated Discovery of Community Structure within Organizations

Jana Diesner, Kathleen Carley, Exploration of Communication Networks from the E-mail Enron Corpus

Linton C. Freeman, A. Kimball Romney, Sue C. Freeman American Anthropologist, New Series, Vol. 89, No. 2 (Jun., 1987) , pp. 310-325

Brewer, D. D., Potterat, J. J., Muth, S. Q., Malone, P. Z., Montoya, P. A., Green, D. A., Rogers, H. L., & Cox, P. A. (2005). Randomized trial of supplementary interviewing techniques to enhance recall of sexual partners in contact interviews. Sexually Transmitted Diseases, 32, 189-193.

Corman, S. R., & Scott, C. R. (1994). Perceived communication relationships, activity foci, and observable communication in collectives. Communication Theory, 4, 171-190.

Corman, S. R., & Bradford, L. B. (1993) Situational effects on the accuracy of self-reported organizational communication behavior. Communication Research, 20, 822-840.

Corman, S. R., & Krizek, R. L. (1993) Accounting resources for organizational communication and individual differences in their use. Management Communication Quarterly, 7, 5-35.

J.C. Johnson and M.K. Orbach (2002) "Perceiving the Political Landscape: Ego Biases in Cognitive Political Networks". Social Networks 24 291-310.