Social network analysis (SNA) is a methodology for studying the connections and behavior of individuals within social groups. Despite its relevance to social and personality psychology, SNA has been underutilized in these fields. We first examine the paucity of SNA research in social and personality journals. Next we describe methodological decisions that must be made before collecting social network data, with benefits and drawbacks for each. We discuss common SNAs and give an overview of software available for SNA. We provide examples from the literature of SNA for both one-mode and two-mode network data. Finally, we make recommendations to researchers considering incorporating SNA into their research.
BastianM.HeymannS.JacomyM. (2009). Gephi: An open source software for exploring and manipulating networks. International AAAI conference on Weblogs and Social Media, San Jose, CA.
3.
BernardH. R.KillworthP.KronenfeldD.SailerL. (1984). The problem of informant accuracy: The validity of retrospective data. Annual Review of Anthropology, 13, 495–517.
BorgattiS. P.CarleyK.KrackhardtD. (2006). Robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Social Networks, 28, 124–136.
6.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysis [Computer software]. Harvard, MA: Analytic Technologies.
7.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.JohnsonJ. C. (2013). Analyzing social networks. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
8.
BorsboomD. (2017). A network theory of mental disorders. World Psychiatry, 16, 5–13.
9.
BreigerR.PattisonP. (1986). Cumulated social roles: The duality of persons and their algebras. Social Networks, 8, 215–256.
10.
ButtsC. T. (2008). Social networks: A methodological introduction. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 11, 13–41.
CarleyK. M. (2014). ORA: A toolkit for dynamic network analysis and visualization. In AlhajjR.RokneJ. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of social network analysis and mining (pp. 1219–1228). New York, NY: Springer.
13.
CasciaroT. (1998). Seeing things clearly: Social structure, personality, and accuracy in social network perception. Social Networks, 20, 331–351.
14.
CliftonA.TurkheimerE.OltmannsT. F. (2007). Improving assessment of personality disorder traits through social network analysis. Journal of Personality, 75, 1007–1032.
15.
CostenbaderE.ValenteT. W. (2003). The stability of centrality measures when networks are sampled. Social Networks, 25, 283–307.
16.
CramerA. O. J.van der SluisS.NoordhofA.WichersM.GeschwindN.AggenS. H.…BorsboomD. (2012). Dimensions of normal personality as networks in search of equilibrium: You can’t like parties if you don’t like people. European Journal of Personality, 26, 414–431. doi:10.1002/per.1866
17.
CrosierB. S.WebsterG. D.DillonH. M. (2012). Wired to connect: Evolutionary psychology and social networks. Review of General Psychology, 16, 230–239. doi:10.1037/a0027919
18.
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal Complex Systems, 1695. Retrieved fromhttp://igraph.org
19.
DeP.SinghA. E.WongT.YacoubW.JollyA. M. (2004). Sexual network analysis of a gonorrhea outbreak. Sexually Transmitted Infections, 80, 280–285. doi:10.1136/sti.2003.007187
20.
DekkerD.KrackhardtD.SnijdersT. A. B. (2007). Sensitivity of MRQAP tests to collinearity and autocorrelation conditions. Psychometrika, 72, 563–581.
21.
FerligojA.HlebecV. (1999). Evaluation of social network measurement instruments. Social Networks, 21, 111–130.
22.
FestingerL.SchachterS.BackK. W. (1950). Social pressures in informal groups: A study of human factors in housing. New York, NY: Harper.
23.
FreemanL. C.RomneyA. K. (1987). Words, deeds, and social structure: A preliminary study of the reliability of informants. Human Organization, 46, 330–334.
24.
GolinelliD.RyanG.GreenH. D.JrKennedyD. P.TuckerJ. S.WenzelS. L. (2010). Sampling to reduce respondent burden in personal network studies and its effect on estimates of structural measures. Field Methods, 22, 217–230.
25.
HandcockM.HunterD.ButtsC.GoodreauS.KrivitskyP.Bender-deMollS.MorrisM. (2015). statnet: Software tools for the statistical analysis of network data. The Statnet Project (http://www.statnet.org; R package version 2015.11.0). Retrieved fromhttp://CRAN.R-project.org/package=statnet
HuismanM. (2006). Imputation of missing network data: Some simple procedures. Journal of Social Structure, 10, 1–29.
28.
IrwinJ. R.McClellandG. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotomizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 366–371.
29.
JuddC. M.McClellandG. H.RyanC. S. (2009). Data analysis: A model comparison approach (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
30.
KalamarasD. V. (2015). Social Network Visualizer (SocNetV) [Computer software]. Retrieved fromhttp://socnetv.org/
31.
KalishY.RobinsG. L. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28, 56–84.
32.
KennyD. (1981). Interpersonal perception: A multivariate round-robin analysis. In BrewerM. B.CollinsB. E. (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences: A volume in honor of Donald T. Campbell (pp. 288–309). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
33.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford.
34.
KentD. (1978). The rise of the Medici: Faction in Florence, 1426–1434. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
KossinetsG. (2006). Effects of missing data in social networks. Social Networks, 28, 247–268.
37.
KrackhardtD. (1988). Predicting with networks: Nonparametric multiple regression analysis of dyadic data. Social Networks, 10, 359–381.
38.
LeifeldP.CranmerS. J. (2016). A theoretical and empirical comparison of the temporal exponential random graph model and the stochastic actor-oriented model. Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1506.06696v3
39.
LewinK. (1948). Resolving social conflicts: Selected papers on group dynamics. Oxford, England: Harper.
40.
McCartyC.KillworthP.RennellJ. (2007). Impact of methods for reducing respondent burden on personal network structural measures. Social Networks, 29, 300–315.
41.
McClellandG. H. (2014). Nasty data: Unruly, ill-mannered observations can ruin your analysis. In ReisH. T.JuddM. (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social and personality psychology (2nd ed., pp. 608–626). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.
43.
MilgramS. (1967). The small-world problem. Psychology Today, 1, 61–67.
44.
MoranP. A. P. (1950a). A test for serial independence of residuals. Biometrika, 37, 178–181. doi:10.2307/2332162
45.
MoranP. A. P. (1950b). Notes on continuous stochastic phenomena. Biometrika, 37, 17–23. doi:10.2307/2332142
46.
MorenoJ. L. (1934). Who shall survive? A new approach to the problem of human interrelations. Washington, DC: Nervous and Mental Disease.
MrvarA.BatageljV. (2016). Analysis and visualization of large networks with program package Pajek. Complex Adaptive Systems Modeling, 4, 1–8.
49.
Netminer(Version 4) [Computer software]. Seoul, South Korea: CYRAM. Retrieved fromhttp://www.netminer.com/
50.
NeyerF. J. (1997). Free recall or recollection in collecting egocentered networks: The role of survey techniques. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 14, 305–316.
51.
PadgettJ. F.AnsellC. K. (1993). Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology, 98, 1259–1319.
52.
R Core Team. (2014). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved fromhttp://www.R-project.org/
53.
RipleyR.BoitmanisK.SnijdersT. A. B.SchoenenbergerF. (2016). RSiena: Siena—Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analysis (R package version 1.1-294/r294). Retrieved fromhttp://R-Forge.R-project.org/projects/rsiena/
54.
RobinsG. (2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social scientists. London, England: Sage.
55.
RobinsG.LusherD. (2013). What are exponential random graph models? In LusherD.KoskinenJ.RobinsG. (Eds.), Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods and applications (pp. 9–15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
56.
RobinsG.PattisonP.KalishY.LusherD. (2007). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29, 173–191.
57.
SelfhoutM.BurkW.BranjeS.DenissenJ.van AikenM.MeeusW. (2010). Emerging late adolescent friendship networks and Big Five personality traits: A social network approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509–538.
58.
SimonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allow presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359–1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
59.
SmithJ.MoodyJ. (2013). Structural effects of network sampling coverage I: Nodes missing at random. Social Networks, 35, 652–668.
60.
SteglichC.SnijdersT. A. B.PearsonM. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393.
61.
StorkD.RichardsW. (1992). Nonrespondents in communication network studies: Problems and possibilities. Group and Organization Management, 17, 193–202.
62.
ThomasA. C.BlitzsteinJ. K. (2011, 113). Valued ties tell fewer lies: Why not to dichotomize network edges with thresholds. Retrieved fromhttps://arxiv.org/abs/1101.0788v2
63.
WardM. D.GleditschK. S. (2008). Spatial regression models. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.
64.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
65.
WattsD. J.StrogatzS. H. (1998). Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks. Nature, 393, 440–442.
66.
WebsterG. D. (2017). Too close for comfort: Assessing spatial dependence in geographic data with spatial regression. Manuscript submitted for publication.
67.
WebsterG. D.GesselmanA. N.CrosierB. S. (2016). Avoidant adult attachment negatively relates to classroom popularity: Social network analysis support for the parent–partner–peer attachment transfer model. Personality and Individual Differences, 96, 248–254. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2016.03.0
