Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors

International Journal of Behavioral Development

Volumn 31, Issue 4, 2007, Pages 397-404

  Burk, William J ^a   Steglich, Christian E G ^b   Snijders, Tom A B ^b,c  

^a ÖREBRO UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b UNIVERSITY OF GRONINGEN   (Netherlands)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Delinquency; Friendship networks; Interdependence; SIENA

Indexed keywords

ADOLESCENT; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COMPUTER PROGRAM; CONTROLLED STUDY; DELINQUENCY; FEMALE; FRIENDSHIP; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; HUMAN RELATION; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; PROCESS MODEL; QUESTIONNAIRE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL NETWORK; SWEDEN;

EID: 34347355334     PISSN: 01650254     EISSN: 14640651     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0165025407077762     Document Type: Article

References (55)

1. Boer, P., Huisman, M., Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., Wichers, L.H.Y., & Zeggelink, E.P.H. (2006). StOCNET: An open software system for the advanced statistical analysis of social networks. Version 1.7. Groningen, The Netherlands: ICS/Science Plus.
2. Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis Cambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
3. Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5. Carrington, P., Scott, J., & Wasserman S. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6. Cyram (2004). Cyram Netminer II.Version 2.4.0 Seoul, South Korea: Cyram.
7. Davis, J.A. (1970). Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: Testing two theoretical models on 742 sociograms. American Sociological Review, 35, 843-852.
8. Dishion, T.J., & Dodge, K.A. (2005). A peer contagion in interventions for children and adolescents: Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 395-400.
9. Ennett, S.T., & Bauman, K.E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 653-663.
10. Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks I: Conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1, 215-239.
11. Friedkin, N. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12. Handcock, M.S., Hunter, D.R., Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M., & Morris, M. (2005). Statnet: An R package for the statistical analysis and simulation of social networks. Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington.
13. Hanneman, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside.
14. Haynie, D.L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter? American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013-1057.
15. Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 31, 897-906.
16. Huisman, M., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2003). Statistical analysis of longitudinal network data with changing composition. Sociological Methods & Research, 32, 253-287.
17. Huisman, M., & Van Duijn, M.A.J. (2005). Software for statistical analysis of social networks. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 270-316). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18. Jaccard, J., Blanton, H., & Dodge, T. (2005). Peer influences on risk behavior: An analysis of the effects of a close friend. Developmental Psychology, 41, 135-147.
19. Kandel, D.B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306-312.
20. Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2005). Dyadic data analysis. New York: Guilford Press.
21. Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescents adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366-380.
22. Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Kiesner, J. (2007). Peers and problem behavior: Have we missed something? In R. Engels, M. Kerr, & H. Stattin (Eds.), Friends, lovers, and groups: Who is important in adolescence and why? (pp. 125-254). London: Wiley.
23. Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer influence. Child Development, 73 (1), 196-208.
24. Kiesner, J., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). " Very important persons" in adolescence: Going beyond in-school, single friendships in the study of peer homophily. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 545-560.
25. Kirke, D.M. (2004). Chain reactions in adolescents' cigarette, alcohol and drug use: Similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks? Social Networks, 26, 3-28.
26. Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Merton, R.K. (1954). Friendship as social process. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18-66). New York: Octagon.
27. Lazega, E., Lemercier, C., &Mounier, L. (2006). A spinning top model of formal structure and informal behaviour: Dynamics of advice networks in a commercial court. European Management Review, 2, 113-122.
28. Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2003). Interlocking judges: On joint (external and self-) governance of markets. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 20, 267-296.
29. Leenders, R.T.A.J. (1995). Models for network dynamics: A Markovian framework. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20, 1-21.
30. Leenders, R.T.A.J. (1996). Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21, 133-148.
31. Magnusson, D., Dunér, A., & Zetterbloom, G. (1975). Adjustment: A longitudinal study. New York: Wiley.
32. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
33. Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). Social cohesion and embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 68, 103-127.
34. Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2007). Staying in or moving away from structured activities: Explanations involving parents and peers. Developmental Psychology, 43, 197-207.
35. Norris, J.R. (1997). Markov chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36. Ploeger, M. (1997). Youth employment and delinquency: Reconsidering a problematic relationship. Criminology, 35, 659-675.
37. Richards, W.D., & Seary, A.J. (2003). Multinet.Version 4.38 for Windows. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University.
38. Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York: Aldine De Gruyter.
39. Schweinberger, M. (2007). Statistical modeling of digraph panel data: Goodness-of-fit. Manuscript submitted for publication.
40. Snijders, T.A.B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological methodology, 31, 361-395.
41. Snijders, T.A.B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 215-247). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42. Snijders, T.A.B., &; Baerveldt, C. (2003). A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship evolution. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 123-151.
43. Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In K. Van Montfort, H. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41-71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44. Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2006). Manual for SIENA, version 3. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen.
45. Steglich, C.E.G., Snijders, T.A.B., & Pearson, M. (2007). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46. Steglich, C.E.G., Snijders, T.A.B., & West, P. (submitted). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents' friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology, 2, 48-56.
47. Taylor, H.M., & Karlin, S. (1998). An introduction to stochastic modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
48. Urberg, K.A., Degirmencioglu, S.M., & Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology, 33, 834-844.
49. Van de Bunt, G.G., Wittek, R.P.M., & de Klepper, M.C. (2003). The evolution of intra-organizational trust networks: An empirical test of six trust mechanisms. International Sociology, 20, 339-369.
50. Van Duijn, M.A.J., Zeggelink, E.P.H., Huisman, J.M., Stokman, F.N., & Wasseur, F.W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshman into a friendship network. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 153-191.
51. Vitaro, F., Trembley, R.E., Kerr, M., Pagani, L., & Bukowski, W.M. (1997). Disruptiveness, friends' characteristics, and delinquency in early adolescence: A test of two competing models of development. Child Development, 68, 676-689.
52. Wasserman, S. (1977). Stochastic models for directed graphs. PhD thesis, Department of Statistics, University of Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
53. Wasserman, S. (1979). A stochastic model for directed graphs with transition rates determined by reciprocity. In K.F. Schuessler (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 392-412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analyses. Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55. Zijlstra, B.J.H., van Duijn, M.A.J., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2006). The multilevel p2 model: A random effect model for the analysis of multiple social networks. Methodology, 2, 42-47.