Summary Social Networks in Theory and
Empirical Research
Tess Monzón – Sociology, Year 2
Lecture 1
Where do ties emerge?
DO CONTEXTS MAKE NETWORKS?
Social network context
Nodes: dots/circles in a network
(people/actors/ego+alter)
Edges: lines between the dots
(connections/relationships/tie)
- Undirected: no direction (they
have a connection with each
other)
- Directed: gericht (has direction (A
→ B means A has a connection to
B, but B does not necessarily have
one to A)
Typical relationship patterns:
- Reciprocity: relationships mostly mutual
- Transitivity: triangles in networks
Network structures
- Density: closeness, how many connections
there are.
- Clustering: nodes tend to form clusters
(groups)
How do relationships emerge?
Focus theory (Feld 1981):
who interacts with who exists because of extra individual conditions such
as meeting opportunities and foci for contacts (social
place/context)
Focus: defined as a social, psychological, legal, or
physical entity around which joint activities are
organized
Individuals whose activities are organized around the
same foci will tend to become interpersonally tied
and form a cluster
,Thus: Networks emerge within foci and across foci that are shared by
individuals.
Controlled for focused interaction, similarity on certain attributes may lead
to selective development of ties. - However, structural features determine
much more where interaction will arise.
Keeping contextual restrictions in mind: meeting comes before mating,
you can only form relationships with people that you have met first.
Opportunities can be manipulated.
Foci: social setting/place where social interaction takes place
- Level of constraint
Degree of forced interactions (interactions mandatory?)
Time spent (more time spend in focus, more interaction
opportunity)
Compatibility with other foci (How easily combines this focus to
others)
- Size (How big is focus)
- Degree to which boundaries exist (how clear are the
boundaries)
- Overlap between foci
Specific mergence of relationships: balance theory (Heider
& Granovetter), Individuals strive for (cognitive) balance, also
in relationships.
Balance theory: balanced triads → product is positive
Examples:
1. All friends
A–B (+), B–C (+), A–C (+)
→ (+ × + × +) = + ✔ balanced
2. “Enemy of my enemy is my friend”
A–B (–), B–C (–), A–C (+)
→ (– × – × +) = + ✔ balanced
Therefore, networks have a tendency for closure
Difference focus theory and balance theory:
Focus theory: actors become involved in relationships through a focus.
When a network is more restrictive, the network members will be more
interconnected. Fits best for a bigger network.
Balance theory: the focal actor strives for cognitive
balance, fits best in the analysis of small networks
(triads).
,Bridge
Local bridge: Without the local bridge, the
distance between the -now connected- nodes
would be much larger
Different forms of capital are resources for
individuals for achieving a good life. These
resources are also dimensions of social
stratification (c.f. Max Weber, 1920)
Financial, human, symbolic/cultural
Social capital (Hanifan): A theory on the creation of and returns to
relationships
refers to the resources embedded in social relationships, such as support,
information, and trust, which individuals can use to achieve their goals.
They consist not of own resources but the resources of those one knows
(you can help me get a job).
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 it’s own right” Ron Burt, 2001)
Changing contexts: migration and social networks, interethnic contacts
Forms of immigrant integration (how well immigrants become part of
the receiving society)
1. Economic or structural integration: incorporation of immigrants
in the education & job market
2. Cultural integration: adoption of the values/customs/language of
the receiving society
3. Social integration: contacts between immigrants and natives
(“interethnic contacts”)
Interethnic contacts are a form of social capital Contacts between
immigrants and natives decrease prejudice/conflict and increase social
cohesion
Strongest ties: relationships (you put in a lot of time and effort like best
friends)
weak(er) ties: people you know, but don’t necessarily speak as often
(classmates)
Kao & Joyner (2004): Adolescents tend to: prefer friends from similar
ethnic backgrounds (homophily), but this is also influenced by social
context
, Explanations for interethnic marriage Kalmijn (1998, Annual Review of
Sociology) Individual level
- Preferences
Contextual level: structural constraints
- Opportunities
- Third parties (social pressure)
Preferences People prefer to interact with others with whom they share
certain characteristics Empirical confirmation homophily (McPherson,
Smith-Lovin & Cook) age, gender (not for marriage!), education,
profession, income, religion & ethnicity
Opportunities depend on (in line with focus theory):
1. Immigrant group size in the country
2. Spatial segregation (cities, neighborhoods)
3. Composition of local settings
Example exam question:
Country 1 (Mixed) • N=200, group A 50% (N=100) en group B 50%
(N=100)
Country 2 (Majority/Minority) • N=200, group A 90% (N=180) en group B
10% (N=20)
Calculate the number and percentage of interethnic marriages for Group A
and B in both countries, if marriages are random (so no preferences for
own ethnic group exist). Assume gender is not a factor in marriages.
Probability of an interethnic marriage (A–B) = 2 × (share A × share B)
Empirical Research
Tess Monzón – Sociology, Year 2
Lecture 1
Where do ties emerge?
DO CONTEXTS MAKE NETWORKS?
Social network context
Nodes: dots/circles in a network
(people/actors/ego+alter)
Edges: lines between the dots
(connections/relationships/tie)
- Undirected: no direction (they
have a connection with each
other)
- Directed: gericht (has direction (A
→ B means A has a connection to
B, but B does not necessarily have
one to A)
Typical relationship patterns:
- Reciprocity: relationships mostly mutual
- Transitivity: triangles in networks
Network structures
- Density: closeness, how many connections
there are.
- Clustering: nodes tend to form clusters
(groups)
How do relationships emerge?
Focus theory (Feld 1981):
who interacts with who exists because of extra individual conditions such
as meeting opportunities and foci for contacts (social
place/context)
Focus: defined as a social, psychological, legal, or
physical entity around which joint activities are
organized
Individuals whose activities are organized around the
same foci will tend to become interpersonally tied
and form a cluster
,Thus: Networks emerge within foci and across foci that are shared by
individuals.
Controlled for focused interaction, similarity on certain attributes may lead
to selective development of ties. - However, structural features determine
much more where interaction will arise.
Keeping contextual restrictions in mind: meeting comes before mating,
you can only form relationships with people that you have met first.
Opportunities can be manipulated.
Foci: social setting/place where social interaction takes place
- Level of constraint
Degree of forced interactions (interactions mandatory?)
Time spent (more time spend in focus, more interaction
opportunity)
Compatibility with other foci (How easily combines this focus to
others)
- Size (How big is focus)
- Degree to which boundaries exist (how clear are the
boundaries)
- Overlap between foci
Specific mergence of relationships: balance theory (Heider
& Granovetter), Individuals strive for (cognitive) balance, also
in relationships.
Balance theory: balanced triads → product is positive
Examples:
1. All friends
A–B (+), B–C (+), A–C (+)
→ (+ × + × +) = + ✔ balanced
2. “Enemy of my enemy is my friend”
A–B (–), B–C (–), A–C (+)
→ (– × – × +) = + ✔ balanced
Therefore, networks have a tendency for closure
Difference focus theory and balance theory:
Focus theory: actors become involved in relationships through a focus.
When a network is more restrictive, the network members will be more
interconnected. Fits best for a bigger network.
Balance theory: the focal actor strives for cognitive
balance, fits best in the analysis of small networks
(triads).
,Bridge
Local bridge: Without the local bridge, the
distance between the -now connected- nodes
would be much larger
Different forms of capital are resources for
individuals for achieving a good life. These
resources are also dimensions of social
stratification (c.f. Max Weber, 1920)
Financial, human, symbolic/cultural
Social capital (Hanifan): A theory on the creation of and returns to
relationships
refers to the resources embedded in social relationships, such as support,
information, and trust, which individuals can use to achieve their goals.
They consist not of own resources but the resources of those one knows
(you can help me get a job).
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 it’s own right” Ron Burt, 2001)
Changing contexts: migration and social networks, interethnic contacts
Forms of immigrant integration (how well immigrants become part of
the receiving society)
1. Economic or structural integration: incorporation of immigrants
in the education & job market
2. Cultural integration: adoption of the values/customs/language of
the receiving society
3. Social integration: contacts between immigrants and natives
(“interethnic contacts”)
Interethnic contacts are a form of social capital Contacts between
immigrants and natives decrease prejudice/conflict and increase social
cohesion
Strongest ties: relationships (you put in a lot of time and effort like best
friends)
weak(er) ties: people you know, but don’t necessarily speak as often
(classmates)
Kao & Joyner (2004): Adolescents tend to: prefer friends from similar
ethnic backgrounds (homophily), but this is also influenced by social
context
, Explanations for interethnic marriage Kalmijn (1998, Annual Review of
Sociology) Individual level
- Preferences
Contextual level: structural constraints
- Opportunities
- Third parties (social pressure)
Preferences People prefer to interact with others with whom they share
certain characteristics Empirical confirmation homophily (McPherson,
Smith-Lovin & Cook) age, gender (not for marriage!), education,
profession, income, religion & ethnicity
Opportunities depend on (in line with focus theory):
1. Immigrant group size in the country
2. Spatial segregation (cities, neighborhoods)
3. Composition of local settings
Example exam question:
Country 1 (Mixed) • N=200, group A 50% (N=100) en group B 50%
(N=100)
Country 2 (Majority/Minority) • N=200, group A 90% (N=180) en group B
10% (N=20)
Calculate the number and percentage of interethnic marriages for Group A
and B in both countries, if marriages are random (so no preferences for
own ethnic group exist). Assume gender is not a factor in marriages.
Probability of an interethnic marriage (A–B) = 2 × (share A × share B)
