Social Networks and Causal Inference

Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 353-374

  VanderWeele, Tyler J ^a   An, Weihua ^b  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Causal Inference; Network Effect; Social Influence; Social Network; Social Network Data

Indexed keywords

EID: 84905250884     PISSN: 13896903     EISSN: 2542839X     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1007/978-94-007-6094-3_17     Document Type: Chapter

References (81)

1. An, W. (2011a). Models and methods to identify peer effects. In J. Scott & P. J. Carrington (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social network analysis (pp. 514–532). London: The Sage Publications.
2. An, W. (2011b). Peer effects on adolescent smoking and social network-based interventions. PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
3. An, W. (2011c). Instrumental variable estimates of peer effects. Working paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
4. An, W. (2011d). Algorithms for social network-based interventions and policies. Working paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
5. An, W. (2011e). On the directionality test of peer effects. Working paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University.
6. Anagnostopoulos, A., Kumar, R., & Mahdian, M. (2008). Influence and correlation in social networks. In Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD international conference on knowledge discovery and data mining (pp. 7–15). New York: ACM.
7. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2008). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
8. Bonacich, P. (2007). Some unique properties of eigenvector centrality. Social Networks, 29, 555–564.
9. Borgatti, S. P. (2005). Creating knowledge: Network structure and innovation. Available at http://www. socialnetworkanalysis.com/knowledge creation.htm
10. Borgatti, S. P. (2006). Identifying sets of key players in a network. Computational, Mathematical and Organizational Theory, 12(1), 21–34.
11. Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., & Fortin, B. (2009). Identification of peer effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics, 150(1), 41–55.
12. Burt, R. S. (1987). Social contagion and innovation: Cohesion versus structural equivalence. American Journal of Sociology, 92(6), 1287–1335.
13. Burt, R. S. (1995). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
14. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110, 349–399.
15. Cacioppo, J. T., Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2009). Alone in the crowd: The structure and spread of loneliness in a large social network. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(6), 977–991.
16. Callahan, O. D., & Robin, S. S. (1969). A social system analysis of preferred leadership role characteristics in high school. Sociology of Education, 42(3), 251–260.
17. Camargo, B., Stinebrickner, R., & Stinebrickner, T. R. (2010). Interracial friendships in college (NBER Working Paper No. 15970). http://www.nber.org/papers/w15970.pdf
18. Campbell, R., Starkey, F., Holliday, J., Audrey, S., Bloor, M., Parry-Langdon, N., Hughes, R., & Moore, L. (2008). An informal school-based peer-led intervention for smoking prevention in adolescence (ASSIST): A cluster randomised trial. Lancet, 371, 1595–1602.
19. Carrington, P. J., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (2005). Model and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.
20. Centola, D. (2010). The spread of behavior in an online social network experiment. Science, 329, 1194–1197.
21. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2007). The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. New England Journal of Medicine, 357, 370–379.
22. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2008). The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network. New England Journal of Medicine, 358, 2249–2258.
23. Christakis, N. A., & Fowler, J. H. (2013). Social contagion theory: Examining dynamic social networks and human behavior. Statistics in Medicine 32(4), 556–577.
24. Cipollone, P., & Rosolia, A. (2007). Social interactions in high school: Lessons from an earthquake. The American Economic Review, 97(3), 948–965.
25. Cohen-Cole, E., & Fletcher, J. M. (2008). Detecting implausible social network effects in acne, height, and headaches: Longitudinal analysis. British Medical Journal, 337, a2533.
26. Copic, J., Jackson, M. O., & Kirman, A. (2009). Identifying community structures from network data via maximum likelihood methods. The B.E. Journal of Theoretical Economics, 9(1), Article 30.
27. Cornwell, B. (2009). Good health and the bridging of structural holes. Social Networks, 31, 92–103.
28. Cox, D. R. (1958). The planning of experiments. New York: Wiley.
29. Dawber, T. R. (1980). The Framingham study: The epidemiology of atherosclerotic disease. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
30. Desmarais, B. A., & Cranmer, S. J. (2012). Statistical inference for valued-edge networks: The generalized exponential random graph model. PLoS ONE, 1(7), e30136.
31. Duflo, E., & Saez, E. (2003). The role of information and social interactions in retirement plan decisions: Evidence from a randomized experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 815–842.
32. Duncan, O. D., Haller, A. O., & Portes, A. (1968). Peer influences on aspirations: A reinterpretation. The American Journal of Sociology, 74(2), 119–137.
33. Falk, A., & Ichino, A. (2006). Clean evidence on peer effects. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(1), 39–56.
34. Feinleib, M., Kannel, W. B., Garrison, R. J., McNamara, P. M., & Castelli, W. P. (1975). The Framingham offspring study: Design and preliminary data. Preventive Medicine, 4, 518–525.
35. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2008). Estimating peer effects on health in social networks. Journal of Health Economics, 27(5), 1386–1391.
36. Fowler, J. H., & Christakis, N. A. (2010). Cooperative behavior cascades in human social networks. PNAS: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107, 5334–5338.
37. Girvan, M., & Newman, M. E. J. (2002). Community structure in social and biological networks. Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(12), 7821–7826.
38. Goldenberg, A., Zheng, A. X., Fienberg, S. E., & Airoldi, E. M. (2009). A survey of statistical network models. Foundations and Trends in Machine Learning, 2, 129–233.
39. Graham, B. (2008). Identifying social interactions through conditional variance restrictions. Econometrica, 76, 643–660.
40. Halloran, M. E., & Struchiner, C. J. (1991). Study designs for dependent happenings. Epidemiology, 2, 331–338.
41. Hernán, M. A., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Compound treatments and transportability of causal inference. Epidemiology, 22, 368–377.
42. Hudgens, M. G., & Halloran, M. E. (2008). Towards causal inference with interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 103, 832–842.
43. Hong, G., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of causal inference for multilevel observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 901–910.
44. Kremer, M., & Levy, D. (2008). Peer effects and alcohol use among college students. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 22(3), 189–206.
45. Lee, L.-f. (2009). Identification and estimation of spatial econometric models with group interactions, contextual factors and fixed effects. Journal of Econometrics, 140(2), 333–374.
46. Lyons, R. (2011). The spread of evidence-poor medicine via flawed social-network analyses. Statistics, Politics and Policy, 2(1), Article 2, 1–26.
47. Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies, 60, 531–542.
48. Manski, C. F. (2013). Identification of treatment response with social interactions. The Econometric Journal 16(1), S1–S23.
49. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
50. Moody, J. (2001). Peer influence groups: Identifying dense clusters in large networks. Social Networks, 23, 261–283.
51. Morgan, S. L., & Sørensen, A. B. (1999). Parental networks, social closure, and mathematics learning: A test of Coleman’s social capital explanation of school effects. American Sociological Review, 64, 661–681.
52. Morgan, S. L., & Todd, J. J. (2009). Intergenerational closure and academic achievement in high school: A new evaluation of Coleman’s conjecture. Sociology of Education, 82(July), 267–286.
53. Noel, H., & Nyhan, B. (2011). The ‘unfriending’ problem: The consequences of homophily in friendship retention for causal estimates of social influence. Social Networks, 33, 211–218.
54. Ohtsuki, H., Hauert, C., Lieberman, E., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). A simple rule for the evolution of cooperation on graphs and social networks. Nature, 441, 502–505.
55. O’Malley, A. J., Elwert, F., Rosenquist, J. N., Zaslavsky, A. M., & Christakis, N. A. (2013). Estimating peer effects in longitudinal dyadic data using instrumental variables (Working Paper). Department of Health Care Policy, Harvard Medical School.
56. Pacheco, J. M., Traulsen, A., & Nowak, M. A. (2006). Coevolution of strategy and structure in complex networks with dynamical linking. Physical Review Letters, 97(25), 258103.
57. Podolny, J. M. (2001). Networks as the pipes and prisms of the market. American Journal of Sociology, 107, 33–60.
58. Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
59. Rosenbaum, P. R. (2007). Interference between units in randomized experiments. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 102, 191–200.
60. Rubin, D. B. (1974). Estimating causal effects of treatments in randomized and non-randomized studies. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 688–701.
61. Rubin, D. B. (1980). Comment on: ‘Randomization analysis of experimental data in the Fisher randomization test’ by D. Basu. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 75, 591–593.
62. Sacerdote, B. (2001). Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116, 681–704.
63. Shalizi, C. R., & Thomas, A. C. (2011). Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies. Sociological Methods and Research, 40, 211–239.
64. Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 31, 361–395.
65. Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In P. J. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press. Chap. 11.
66. Sobel, M. E. (2006). What do randomized studies of housing mobility demonstrate? Causal inference in the face of interference. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 1398–1407.
67. Steglich, C. E., Snijders, T. A., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393.
68. Tchetgen, T., Eric, J., & VanderWeele, T. J. (2012). On causal inference in the presence of interference. Statistical Methods in Medical Research – Special Issue on Causal Inference, 21, 55–75.
69. Uzzi, B., & Spiro, J. (2005). Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem. American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), 447–504.
70. Valente, T. W. (2005). Network models and methods for studying the diffusion of innovations. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 98–116). New York: Cambridge University Press.
71. Valente, T. W., & Davis, R. L. (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566, 55–67.
72. Valente, T. W., & Pumpuang, P. (2007). Identifying opinion leaders to promote behavior change. Health Education and Behavior, 34, 881–896.
73. Valente, T. W., Hoffman, B. R., Ritt-Olson, A., Lichtman, K., & Johnson, C. A. (2003). Effects of a social-network method for group assignment strategies on peer-led tobacco prevention programs in schools. American Journal of Public Health, 93(1), 1837–1843.
74. VanderWeele, T. J. (2011). Sensitivity analysis for contagion effects in social networks. Sociological Methods and Research, 40, 240–255.
75. VanderWeele, T. J., & Arah, O. A. (2011). Bias formulas for sensitivity analysis of unmeasured confounding for general outcomes, treatments and confounders. Epidemiology, 22, 42–52.
76. VanderWeele, T. J., & Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. (2011). Effect partitioning under interference for two-stage randomized experiments. Statistics and Probability Letters, 81, 861–869.
77. VanderWeele, T. J., Ogburn, E. L., & Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J. (2012a). Why and when “flawed” social network analyses still yield valid tests of no contagion. Statistics, Politics, and Policy, 3, Article 4, 1–11.
78. VanderWeele, T. J., Tchetgen Tchetgen, E. J., & Halloran, M. E. (2012b). Components of the indirect effect in vaccine trials: Identification of contagion and infectiousness effects. Epidemiology, 23, 751–761.
79. Vissa, B. (2011). A matching theory of entrepreneurs’ tie formation intentions and initiation of economic exchange. Academy of Management Journal, 54(1), 137–158.
80. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
81. Wing, R. R., & Jeffery, R. W. (1999). Benefits of recruiting participants with friends and increasing social support for weight loss and maintenance. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67(1), 132–138.