Actor-oriented models are described as a longitudinal strategy for examining the co-evolution of social networks and individual behaviors. We argue that these models provide advantages over conventional approaches due to their ability to account for inherent dependencies between individuals embedded in a social network (i.e., reciprocity, transitivity) and model interdependencies between network and behavioral dynamics. We provide a brief explanation of actor-oriented processes, followed by a description of parameter estimates, model specification, and selection procedures used by the Simulation Investigation for Empirical Network Analyses (SIENA) software program (Snijders, Steglich, Schweinberger, & Huisman, 2006). To illustrate the applicability of these models, we provide an empirical example investigating the co-evolution of friendship networks and delinquent behaviors in a longitudinal sample of Swedish adolescents with the goal of simultaneously assessing selection and influence processes. Findings suggest both processes play a substantive role in the observed dynamics of delinquent behaviors, with influence having a relatively stronger role than selection (especially in reciprocated friendships).
Boer, P., Huisman, M., Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., Wichers, L.H.Y., & Zeggelink, E.P.H. (2006). StOCNET: An open software system for the advanced statistical analysis of social networks. Version 1.7 . Groningen, The Netherlands: ICS/Science Plus.
2.
Borgatti, S.P., Everett, M.G., & Freeman, L.C. (2002). UCINET 6 for Windows: Software for social network analysisCambridge, MA: Analytic Technologies.
3.
Burt, R.S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
Cairns, R.B., & Cairns, B.D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. New York: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Carrington, P., Scott, J., & Wasserman S. (2005). Models and methods in social network analysis . New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
Cyram (2004). Cyram Netminer II.Version 2.4.0Seoul, South Korea: Cyram.
7.
Davis, J.A. (1970). Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: Testing two theoretical models on 742 sociograms. American Sociological Review, 35, 843—852.
8.
Dishion, T.J., & Dodge, K.A. (2005). A peer contagion in interventions for children and adolescents: Moving towards an understanding of the ecology and dynamics of change. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 395—400.
9.
Ennett, S.T., & Bauman, K.E. (1994). The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 653—663.
10.
Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in social networks I: Conceptual clarification . Social Networks, 1, 215—239.
11.
Friedkin, N. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Handcock, M.S., Hunter, D.R., Butts, C.T., Goodreau, S.M., & Morris, M. (2005). Statnet: An R package for the statistical analysis and simulation of social networks. Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology, University of Washington.
13.
Hanneman, R.A., & Riddle, M. (2005). Introduction to social network methods. Riverside: University of California, Riverside.
14.
Haynie, D.L. (2001). Delinquent peers revisited: Does network structure matter?American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1013—1057.
15.
Hogue, A., & Steinberg, L. (1995). Homophily of internalized distress in adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 31, 897—906.
16.
Huisman, M., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2003). Statistical analysis of longitudinal network data with changing composition. Sociological Methods & Research, 32, 253—287.
17.
Huisman, M., & Van Duijn, M.A.J. (2005). Software for statistical analysis of social networks. In P. Carrington , J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 270—316). New York: Cambridge University Press.
18.
Jaccard, J., Blanton, H., & Dodge, T. (2005). Peer influences on risk behavior: An analysis of the effects of a close friend. Developmental Psychology , 41, 135—147.
19.
Kandel, D.B. (1978). Similarity in real-life adolescent friendship pairs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 306—312.
20.
Kenny, D.A., Kashy, D.A., & Cook, W.L. (2005). Dyadic data analysis. New York : Guilford Press.
21.
Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2000). What parents know, how they know it, and several forms of adolescents adjustment: Further evidence for a reinterpretation of monitoring. Developmental Psychology, 36, 366—380.
22.
Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Kiesner, J. (2007). Peers and problem behavior: Have we missed something ? In R. Engels, M. Kerr, & H. Stattin (Eds.), Friends, lovers, and groups: Who is important in adolescence and why? (pp. 125—254). London: Wiley.
23.
Kiesner, J., Cadinu, M., Poulin, F., & Bucci, M. (2002). Group identification in early adolescence: Its relation with peer adjustment and its moderator effect on peer influence. Child Development, 73(1), 196—208.
24.
Kiesner, J., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2004). “Very important persons” in adolescence: Going beyond in-school, single friendships in the study of peer homophily . Journal of Adolescence, 27, 545—560.
25.
Kirke, D.M. (2004). Chain reactions in adolescents' cigarette, alcohol and drug use: Similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks?Social Networks, 26, 3—28.
26.
Lazarsfeld, P.F., & Merton, R.K. (1954). Friendship as social process. In M. Berger, T. Abel, & C. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society (pp. 18—66). New York: Octagon.
27.
Lazega, E., Lemercier, C., & Mounier, L. (2006). A spinning top model of formal structure and informal behaviour: Dynamics of advice networks in a commercial court. European Management Review, 2, 113—122.
28.
Lazega, E., & Mounier, L. (2003). Interlocking judges: On joint (external and self-) governance of markets. Research in the Sociology of Organizations , 20, 267—296.
29.
Leenders, R.T.A.J. (1995). Models for network dynamics: A Markovian framework . Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 20, 1—21.
30.
Leenders, R.T.A.J. (1996). Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices . Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21, 133—148.
31.
Magnusson, D., Dunér, A., & Zetterbloom, G. (1975). Adjustment: A longitudinal study. New York: Wiley.
32.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks . Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415—444.
33.
Moody, J., & White, D.R. (2003). Social cohesion and embeddedness. American Sociological Review, 68, 103—127.
34.
Persson, A., Kerr, M., & Stattin, H. (2007). Staying in or moving away from structured activities: Explanations involving parents and peers. Developmental Psychology , 43, 197—207.
35.
Norris, J.R. (1997). Markov chains. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
Ploeger, M. (1997). Youth employment and delinquency: Reconsidering a problematic relationship. Criminology, 35, 659—675.
37.
Richards, W.D., & Seary, A.J. (2003). Multinet.Version 4.38 for Windows. Burnaby: Simon Fraser University.
38.
Sahlins, M. (1972). Stone age economics. New York : Aldine De Gruyter.
39.
Schweinberger, M. (2007). Statistical modeling of digraph panel data: Goodness-of-fit . Manuscript submitted for publication.
40.
Snijders, T.A.B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics . Sociological methodology, 31, 361—395.
41.
Snijders, T.A.B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (pp. 215—247). New York: Cambridge University Press.
42.
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.
43.
Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In K. Van Montfort , H. Oud, & A. Satorra (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41—71). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
44.
Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C.E.G., Schweinberger, M., & Huisman, M. (2006). Manual for SIENA, version 3. Groningen, The Netherlands: University of Groningen .
45.
Steglich, C.E.G., Snijders, T.A.B., & Pearson, M. (2007). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Manuscript submitted for publication.
46.
Steglich, C.E.G., Snijders, T.A.B., & West, P. (submitted). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents' friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption . Methodology, 2, 48—56.
47.
Taylor, H.M., & Karlin, S. (1998). An introduction to stochastic modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Academic Press.
48.
Urberg, K.A., Degirmencioglu, S.M., & Pilgrim, C. (1997). Close friend and group influence on adolescent cigarette smoking and alcohol use. Developmental Psychology , 33, 834—844.
49.
Van deBunt, G.G., Wittek, R.P.M., & de Klepper, M.C. (2003). The evolution of intra-organizational trust networks: An empirical test of six trust mechanisms. International Sociology, 20, 339—369.
50.
Van Duijn, M.A.J., Zeggelink, E.P.H., Huisman, J.M., Stokman, F.N., & Wasseur, F.W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshman into a friendship network. Journal of MathematicalSociology, 27, 153—191.
51.
Vitaro, F., Trembley, R.E., Kerr, M., Pagani, L., & Bukowski, W.M. (1997). Disruptiveness, friends' characteristics, and delinquency in early adolescence: A test of two competing models of development. Child Development, 68, 676—689.
52.
Wasserman, S. (1977). Stochastic models for directed graphs. PhD thesis, Department of Statistics, University of Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
53.
Wasserman, S. (1979). A stochastic model for directed graphs with transition rates determined by reciprocity. In K.F. Schuessler (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 392—412). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
54.
Wasserman, S., & Faust, K. (1994). Social network analyses. Methods and applications . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
Zijlstra, B.J.H., van Duijn, M.A.J., & Snijders, T.A.B. (2006). The multilevel p2 model: A random effect model for the analysis of multiple social networks. Methodology, 2, 42—47.
