One interesting idea in social network analysis is the directionality test that utilizes the directions of social ties to help identify peer effects. The null hypothesis of the test is that if contextual factors are the only force that affects peer outcomes, the estimated peer effects should not differ, if the directions of social ties are reversed. In this article, I statistically formalize this test and investigate its properties under various scenarios. In particular, I point out the validity of the test is contingent on the presence of peer selection, sampling error, and simultaneity bias. I also outline several methods that can help provide causal estimates of peer effects in social networks.
AmmermuellerAndreasPischkeJrn-Steffen. 2009. “Peer Effects in European Primary Schools: Evidence from the Progress in International Reading Literacy Study.” Journal of Labor Economics27:315–48.
2.
AnWeihua. 2011a. “Models and Methods to Identify Peer Effects.” Pp. 514–32 in The Sage Handbook of Social Network Analysis, edited by ScottJohnCarringtonPeter J.. London, UK: The Sage Publications.
3.
AnWeihua. 2011b. “Peer Effects on Adolescent Smoking and Social Network-based Interventions.” PhD dissertation, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
4.
AnWeihua. 2015. “Instrumental Variables Estimates of Peer Effects in Social Networks.” Social Science Research50:382–94.
5.
AnagnostopoulosArisKumarRaviMahdianMohammad. 2008. “Influence and Correlation in Social Networks.” LiYingLiuBingSarawagiSunita (Eds) Pp. 7–15 in Proceeding of the 14th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. New York: ACM.
6.
AngristJoshua D.PischkeJrn-Steffen. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
7.
BramoullYannDjebbariHabibaFortinBernard. 2009. “Identification of Peer Effects through Social Networks.” Journal of Econometrics150:41–55.
8.
ChristakisNicholas A.FowlerJames H.. 2007. “The Spread of Obesity in a Large Social Network over 32 Years.” New England Journal of Medicine357:370–79.
9.
ChristakisNicholas A.FowlerJames H.. 2013. “Social Contagion Theory: Examining Dynamic Social Networks and Human Behavior.” Statistics in Medicine32:556–77.
10.
Cohen-ColeEthanFletcherJason M.. 2008a. “Is Obesity Contagious? Social Networks vs. Environmental Factors in the Obesity Epidemic.” Journal of Health Economics27:1382–87.
11.
Cohen-ColeEthanFletcherJason M.. 2008b. “Detecting Implausible Social Network Effects in Acne, Height, and Headaches: Longitudinal Analysis.” British Medical Journal337:a2533.
12.
DuncanOtis DudleyHallerArchibald O.PortesAlejandro. 1968. “Peer Influences on Aspirations: A Reinterpretation.” The American Journal of Sociology74:119–37.
13.
FowlerJames H.ChristakisNicholas A.. 2008. “Estimating Peer Effects on Health in Social Networks: A Response to Cohen-Cole and Fletcher; and Trogdon, Nonnemaker, and Pais.” Journal of Health Economics27:1386–91.
14.
GrahamBryan S.2008. “Identifying Social Interactions through Conditional Variance Restrictions.” Econometrica76:643–60.
15.
HeckmanJames. 1978. “Dummy Endogenous Variables in a Simultaneous Equation System.” Econometrica46:931–59.
16.
HollandPaul W.LeinhardtSamuel. 1981. “An Exponential Family of Probability Distributions for Directed Graphs.” Journal of the American Statistical Association76:33–65.
17.
LyonsRussell. 2011. “The Spread of Evidence-poor Medicine via Flawed Social-network Analysis.” Statistics, Politics, and Policy2(1): Article 2.
18.
MaddalaG. S.1983. Limited-dependent and Qualitative Variables in Econometrics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
19.
ManskiCharles F.1993. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem.” The Review of Economic Studies60:531–42.
20.
NoelHansNyhanBrendan. 2011. “The ‘Unfriending’ Problem: The Consequences of Homophily in Friendship Retention for Causal Estimates of Social Influence.” Social Networks33:211–18.
21.
O’MalleyA. JamesElwertFelixNiels RosenquistJ.ZaslavskyAlan M.ChristakisNicholas A.. 2014. “Estimating Peer Effects in Longitudinal Dyadic Data Using Instrumental Variables.” Biometrics70:506–15.
22.
SchmidtPeterStraussRobert P.. 1975. “Estimation of Models with Jointly Dependent Qualitative Variables: A Simultaneous Logit Approach.” Econometrica43:745–55.
23.
ShaliziCosma RohillaThomasAndrew C.. 2011. “Homophily and Contagion Are Generically Confounded in Observational Social Network Studies.” Sociological Methods & Research40:211–39.
24.
SteglichChristianSnijdersTom A. B.PearsonMichael. 2010. “Dynamic Networks and Behavior: Separating Selection from Influence.” Sociological Methodology40:329–93.
25.
ThomasA. C.2013. “The Social Contagion Hypothesis: Comment on ‘Social Contagion Theory: Examining Dynamic Social Networks and Human Behavior.’” Statistics in Medicine32:581–90.
26.
VanderWeeleTyler J.2011. “Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks.” Sociological Methods & Research40:240–55.
27.
VanderWeeleTyler J.AnWeihua. 2013. “Social Networks and Causal Inference.” Pp. 353–74 in Handbook of Causal Analysis for Social Research, edited by MorganStephen. New York: Springer.
28.
VanderWeeleT. J.OgburnE. L.TchetgenE. J.. 2012. “Why and When ‘Flawed’ Social Network Analyses Still Yield Valid Tests of No Contagion.” Statistics, Politics, and Policy3:1–11.
29.
WooldridgeJeffery M.2009. Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. 4th ed. Mason, OH: South-Western.
