Abstract
In some panel data studies, respondents are nested in social contexts, like classrooms or organizations. The social relations, such as friendship or collaboration, between the individuals in such contexts can be represented by social networks. Like individual outcomes (e.g., behavior or performance), the social relations between individuals are not static. Social networks and individual outcomes change over time and can mutually affect each other. In this chapter, we present a statistical model to study the interdependent dynamics (or coevolution) of network structure and individual outcomes. We assume panel observations of networks and individual attributes to be the discrete-time realizations of an underlying continuous-time process, which is modeled by a stochastic differential equation for the attribute dynamics and a Markov chain model for the network dynamics. We illustrate the proposed method by a study of the coevolution of friendship ties and mathematics grades among 1160 students in 39 classrooms.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agnew, R. (1991). The interactive effects of peer variables on delinquency. Criminology, 29, 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1991.tb01058.x
Bergstrom, A. R. (1984). Continuous time stochastic models and issues of aggregation over time. In Z. Griliches & M. D. Intriligator (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics, volume II (pp. 1146–1212). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers BV.
Block, P. (2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Social Networks, 40, 163–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2014.10.005.
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester: Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470743386.
Caravita, S. C. S., Sijtsema, J. J., Rambaran, A. J., & Gini, G. (2014). Peer influences on moral disengagement in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 193–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9953-1.
Cochran, W. G. (1954). The combination of estimates from different experiments. Biometrics, 10(1), 101–129. https://doi.org/10.2307/3001666.
Gandolfo, G. (1993). Continuous-time econometrics has come of age. In G. Gandolfo (Ed.), Continuous-time econometrics (pp. 1–11). London: Chapman & Hall.
Greenan, C. C. (2015). Diffusion of innovations in dynamic networks. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 178, 147–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/rssa.12054.
Hamerle, A., Nagl, W., & Singer, H. (1991). Problems with the estimation of stochastic differential equations using structural equation models. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 16(3), 201–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1991.9990088.
Holland, P. W., & Leinhardt, S. (1977). A dynamic model for social networks. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 5(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1977.9989862.
Huisman, M., & Steglich, C. (2008). Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network studies. Social Networks, 30, 297–308. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2008.04.004.
Hyde, J. S., Fennema, E., & Lamon, S. J. (1990). Gender differences in mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 139–155. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.107.2.139.
Kadushin, C. (2012). Understanding social networks: Theories, concepts, and findings. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kalbfleisch, J. D., & Lawless, J. F. (1985). The analysis of panel data under a Markov assumption. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 80, 863–871. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1985.10478195.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 36(3), 306–312. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.3.306.
Knecht, A. (2004). Network and actor attributes in early adolescence. DANS. https://doi.org/10.17026/dans-z9b-h2bp
Knecht, A., Burk, W. J., Weesie, J., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2011). Friendship and alcohol use in early adolescence: A multilevel social network approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 475–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00685.x.
Knecht, A., Snijders, T. A. B., Baerveldt, C., Steglich, C. E. G., & Raub, W. (2010). Friendship and delinquency: Selection and influence processes in early adolescence. Social Development, 19(3), 494–514. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00564.x.
Koskinen, J. H., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Bayesian inference for dynamic social network data. Journal of Statistical Planning and Inference, 137, 3930–3938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jspi.2007.04.011.
Lehmann, E. L. (1999). Elements of large sample theory. New York: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/b98855.
Lindberg, S. M., Hyde, J. S., & Petersen, J. L. (2010). New trends in gender and mathematics performance: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 136(6), 1123–1135. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0021276.
Manger, M. S., & Pickup, M. A. (2016). The coevolution of trade agreement networks and democracy. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 60(1), 164–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022002714535431.
Marsden, P. V. (2005). Recent developments in network measurement. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 8–30). New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511811395.002.
McFadden, D. (1974). Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. In P. Zarembka (Ed.), Frontiers in economics (pp. 105–142). New York: Academic Press.
Niezink, N. M. D., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2017). Co-evolution of social networks and continuous actor attributes. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 11(4), 1948–1973. https://doi.org/10.1214/17-AOAS1037.
Norris, J. R. (1997). Markov chains. New York: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511810633.
Oud, J. H. L. (2007). Continuous time modeling of reciprocal effects in the cross-lagged panel design. In S. M. Boker & M. J. Wenger (Eds.), Data analytic techniques for dynamical systems (pp. 87–129). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Oud, J. H. L., & Jansen, R. A. R. G. (2000). Continuous time state space modeling of panel data by means of SEM. Psychometrika, 65(2), 199–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294374
Polyak, B. T. (1990). New method of stochastic approximation type. Automation and Remote Control, 51, 937–946.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A., & Preciado, P. (2018). Manual for RSiena (version May 2018) [Computer software manual]. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics, Nuffield College.
Robbins, H., & Monro, S. (1951). A stochastic approximation method. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 22, 400–407. https://doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177729586.
Robins, G. (2015). Doing social network research: Network-based research design for social scientists. London: Sage.
Ruppert, D. (1988). Efficient estimation from a slowly convergent Robbins-Monro process (Tech. Rep.). Cornell University, School of Operations Research and Industrial Engineering.
Schweinberger, M., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Markov models for digraph panel data: Monte Carlo-based derivative estimation. Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, 51, 4465–4483. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2006.07.014.
Scott, J., & Carrington, P. J. (Eds.). (2011). The SAGE handbook of social network analysis. London: SAGE Publications Ltd.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. In M. Sobel & M. Becker (Eds.), Sociological methodology (pp. 361–395). Boston: Basil Blackwell.
Snijders, T. A. B. (1996). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21, 149–172. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1996.9990178.
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.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Baerveldt, C. (2003). A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship evolution. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 123–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/00222500305892.
Snijders, T. A. B., Koskinen, J., & Schweinberger, M. (2010a). Maximum likelihood estimation for social network dynamics. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 4(2), 567–588. https://doi.org/10.1214/09-AOAS313.
Snijders, T. A. B., & Pickup, M. (2016). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network dynamics. In J. N. Victor, A. M. Montgomery, & M. Lubell (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political networks. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Snijders, T. A. B., Van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010b). Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004.
Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In K. van Montfort, J. H. L. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Stadtfeld, C. (2012). Events in social networks: A stochastic actor-oriented framework for dynamic event processes in social networks. Phd dissertation, Karlsruher Institut für Technologie.
Stadtfeld, C., & Geyer-Schulz, A. (2011). Analyzing event stream dynamics in two-mode networks: An exploratory analysis of private communication in a question and answer community. Social Networks, 33, 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2011.07.004.
Stadtfeld, C., Hollway, J., & Block, P. (2017). Dynamic network actor models: Investigating coordination ties through time. Sociological Methodology, 47, 1–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081175017709295.
Steglich, C. E. G., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–392. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9531.2010.01225.x
Voelkle, M. C., Oud, J. H. L., Davidov, E., & Schmidt, P. (2012). An SEM approach to continuous time modeling of panel data: Relating authoritarianism and anomia. Psychological Methods, 17, 176–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027543.
Wasserman, S. S. (1980). A stochastic model for directed graphs with transition rates determined by reciprocity. Sociological Methodology, 11, 392–412. https://doi.org/10.2307/270870.
Wasserman, S. S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analysis: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511815478.
Weerman, F. (2011). Delinquent peers in context: A longitudinal network analysis of selection and influence effects. Criminology, 49, 253–286. https:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2010.00223.x
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Niezink, N.M.D., Snijders, T.A.B. (2018). Continuous-Time Modeling of Panel Data with Network Structure. In: van Montfort, K., Oud, J.H.L., Voelkle, M.C. (eds) Continuous Time Modeling in the Behavioral and Related Sciences. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77219-6_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77219-6_5
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-77218-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-77219-6
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)