Psychometrika

, Volume 61, Issue 3, pp 401–425 | Cite as

Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs andp

  • Stanley Wasserman
  • Philippa Pattison
Article

Abstract

Spanning nearly sixty years of research, statistical network analysis has passed through (at least) two generations of researchers and models. Beginning in the late 1930's, the first generation of research dealt with the distribution of various network statistics, under a variety of null models. The second generation, beginning in the 1970's and continuing into the 1980's, concerned models, usually for probabilities of relational ties among very small subsets of actors, in which various simple substantive tendencies were parameterized. Much of this research, most of which utilized log linear models, first appeared in applied statistics publications.

But recent developments in social network analysis promise to bring us into a third generation. The Markov random graphs of Frank and Strauss (1986) and especially the estimation strategy for these models developed by Strauss and Ikeda (1990; described in brief in Strauss, 1992), are very recent and promising contributions to this field. Here we describe a large class of models that can be used to investigate structure in social networks. These models include several generalizations of stochastic blockmodels, as well as models parameterizing global tendencies towards clustering and centralization, and individual differences in such tendencies. Approximate model fits are obtained using Strauss and Ikeda's (1990) estimation strategy.

In this paper we describe and extend these models and demonstrate how they can be used to address a variety of substantive questions about structure in social networks.

Key words

categorical data analysis social network analysis random graphs 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agresti, A. (1990).Categorical data analysis. New York: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, C. J., & Wasserman, S. (1995). Logmultilinear models for valued social relations.Sociological Methods & Research, 24, 96–127.Google Scholar
  3. Besag, J. (1974). Spatial interaction and the statistical analysis of lattice systems.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B,36, 192–236.Google Scholar
  4. Faust, K., & Wasserman, S. (1992). Centrality and prestige: A review and synthesis.Journal of Quantitative Anthropology, 4, 23–78.Google Scholar
  5. Fienberg, S. E. (1980).The analysis of cross-classified, categorical data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  6. Fienberg, S. E., & Wasserman, S. (1981). Categorical data analysis of single sociometric relations. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.),Sociological methodology 1981 (pp. 156–192). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  7. Frank, O., & Strauss, D. (1986). Markov random graphs.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 81, 832–842.Google Scholar
  8. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1973). The structural implications of measurement error in sociometry.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3, 85–111.Google Scholar
  9. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1975). The statistical analysis of local structure in social networks. In D. R. Heise (Ed.),Sociological methodology 1976 (pp. 1–45). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1977). Notes on the statistical analysis of social network data. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  11. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1978). An omnibus test for social structure using triads.Sociological Methods & Research, 7, 227–256.Google Scholar
  12. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1979). Structural sociometry. In P. W. Holland & S. Leinhardt (Eds.),Perspectives on social network research (pp. 63–83). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1981). An exponential family of probability distributions for directed graphs.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 76, 33–65. (with discussion)Google Scholar
  14. Iacobucci, D., & Wasserman, S. (1990). Social networks with two sets of actors.Psychometrika, 55, 707–720.Google Scholar
  15. Ising, E. (1925). Beitrag zur theorie des ferramagnetismus.Zeitschrift fur Physik, 31, 253–258.Google Scholar
  16. Johnsen, E. C. (1985). Network macrostructure models for the Davis-Leinhardt set of empirical sociomatrices.Social Networks, 7, 203–224.Google Scholar
  17. Johnsen, E. C. (1986). Structure and process: Agreement models for friendship formation.Social Networks, 8, 257–306.Google Scholar
  18. Kindermann, R. P., & Snell, J. L. (1980). On the relation between Markov random fields and social networks.Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 8, 1–13.Google Scholar
  19. Koehly, L., & Wasserman, S. (1994). Classification of actors in a social network based on stochastic centrality and prestige. Manuscript submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  20. Pattison, P., & Wasserman, S. (in press). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: II. Extensions and generalizations to valued and bivariate relations.Journal of Quantitative Anthropology.Google Scholar
  21. Reitz, K. P. (1982). Using log linear analysis with network data: Another look at Sampson's monastery.Social Networks, 4, 243–256.Google Scholar
  22. Ripley, B. (1981).Spatial statistics. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  23. Sampson, S. F. (1968).A novitiate in a period of change: An experimental and case study of relationships. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Department of Sociology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
  24. Snijders, T. A. B. (1991). Enumeration and simulation methods for 0–1 matrices with given marginals.Psychometrika, 56, 397–417.Google Scholar
  25. Speed, T. P. (1978). Relations between models for spatial data, contingency tables, and Markov fields on graphs.Supplement Advances in Applied Probability, 10, 111–122.Google Scholar
  26. Strauss, D. (1977). Clustering on colored lattices.Journal of Applied Probability, 14, 135–143.Google Scholar
  27. Strauss, D. (1986). On a general class of models for interaction.SIAM Review, 28, 513–527.Google Scholar
  28. Strauss, D. (1992). The many faces of logistic regression.The American Statistician, 46, 321–327.Google Scholar
  29. Strauss, D., & Ikeda, M. (1990). Pseudolikelihood estimation for social networks.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 204–212.Google Scholar
  30. Vickers, M. (1981).Relational analysis: An applied evaluation. Unpublished Masters of Science thesis, Department of Psychology, University of Melbourne, Australia.Google Scholar
  31. Vickers, M., & Chan, S. (1981).Representing classroom social structure. Melbourne: Victoria Institute of Secondary Education.Google Scholar
  32. Walker, M. E. (1995).Statistical models for social support networks: Application of exponential models to undirected graphs with dyadic dependencies. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Illinois, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  33. Wang, Y. J., & Wong, G. Y. (1987). Stochastic blockmodels for directed graphs.Journal of the American Statistical Association, 82, 8–19.Google Scholar
  34. Wasserman, S. (1978). Models for binary directed graphs and their applications.Advances in Applied Probability, 10, 803–818.Google Scholar
  35. Wasserman, S. (1987). Conformity of two sociometric relations.Psychometrika, 52, 3–18.Google Scholar
  36. Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994).Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  37. Wasserman, S., & Galaskiewicz, J. (1984). Some generalizations ofp1: External constraints, interactions, and non-binary relations.Social Networks, 6, 177–192.Google Scholar
  38. Wasserman, S., & Iacobucci, D. (1986). Statistical analysis of discrete relational data.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 39, 41–64.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanley Wasserman
    • 1
  • Philippa Pattison
    • 2
  1. 1.University of IllinoisChampaign
  2. 2.University of MelbourneUSA

Personalised recommendations