English
 
Help Privacy Policy Disclaimer
  Advanced SearchBrowse

Item

ITEM ACTIONSEXPORT
  Measuring reciprocity: Double sampling, concordance, and network construction

Ready, E., & Power, E. A. (2021). Measuring reciprocity: Double sampling, concordance, and network construction. Network Science, 2021, 1-16. doi:10.1017/nws.2021.18.

Item is

Files

show Files
hide Files
:
Ready_measuring_NetworkSci_2021.pdf (Publisher version), 2MB
Name:
Ready_measuring_NetworkSci_2021.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Hybrid
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
2021
Copyright Info:
Published by Cambridge University Press. This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
:
Ready_measuring_NetworkSci_suppl1_2021.pdf (Supplementary material), 83KB
Name:
Ready_measuring_NetworkSci_suppl1_2021.pdf
Description:
-
OA-Status:
Hybrid
Visibility:
Public
MIME-Type / Checksum:
application/pdf / [MD5]
Technical Metadata:
Copyright Date:
-
Copyright Info:
-
License:
-

Locators

show

Creators

show
hide
 Creators:
Ready, Elspeth1, Author
Power, Eleanor A., Author
Affiliations:
1Department of Human Behavior Ecology and Culture, Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Max Planck Society, Deutscher Platz 6 04103 Leipzig, ou_persistent22              

Content

show
hide
Free keywords: social networks, reciprocity, concordance, double sampling, informant accuracy
 Abstract: Reciprocity—the mutual provisioning of support/goods—is a pervasive feature of social life. Directed networks provide a way to examine the structure of reciprocity in a community. However, measuring social networks involves assumptions about what relationships matter and how to elicit them, which may impact observed reciprocity. In particular, the practice of aggregating multiple sources of data on the same relationship (e.g., “double-sampled” data, where both the “giver” and “receiver” are asked to report on their relationship) may have pronounced impacts on network structure. To investigate these issues, we examine concordance (ties reported by both parties) and reciprocity in a set of directed, double-sampled social support networks. We find low concordance in people’s responses. Taking either the union (including any reported ties) or the intersection (including only concordant ties) of double-sampled relationships results in dramatically higher levels of reciprocity. Using multilevel exponential random graph models of social support networks from 75 villages in India, we show that these changes cannot be fully explained by the increase in the number of ties produced by layer aggregation. Respondents’ tendency to name the same people as both givers and receivers of support plays an important role, but this tendency varies across contexts and relationships type. We argue that no single method should necessarily be seen as the “correct” choice for aggregation of multiple sources of data on a single relationship type. Methods of aggregation should depend on the research question, the context, and the relationship in question.

Details

show
hide
Language(s): eng - English
 Dates: 2021-12-09
 Publication Status: Published online
 Pages: -
 Publishing info: -
 Table of Contents: -
 Rev. Type: Peer
 Identifiers: DOI: 10.1017/nws.2021.18
 Degree: -

Event

show

Legal Case

show

Project information

show

Source 1

show
hide
Title: Network Science
Source Genre: Journal
 Creator(s):
Affiliations:
Publ. Info: Cambridge : Cambridge University Press
Pages: 16 Volume / Issue: 2021 Sequence Number: - Start / End Page: 1 - 16 Identifier: ISSN: 2050-1250