Stochastic actor-oriented (SAO) models are a family of models for network dynamics that enable researchers to test multiple, often competing explanations for network change and estimate the extent and relative power of various influences on network evolution. SAO models for the co-evolution of network ties and actor behavior, the most comprehensive category of SAO models, examine how networks and actor attributes—their behavior, performance, or attitudes—influence each other over time. While these models have been widely used in the social sciences, and particularly in educational settings, their use in organizational scholarship has been extremely limited. This paper provides a layperson introduction to SAO models for the co-evolution of networks and behavior and the types of research questions they can address. The models and their underpinnings are explained in nonmathematical terms, and theoretical explanations are supported by a concrete, detailed example that includes step-by-step model building and hypothesis testing, alongside an R script.
AgneessensF.WittekR. (2008). Social capital and employee well-being: Disentangling intrapersonal and interpersonal selection and influence mechanisms. Revue Francaise de Sociologie, 49(3), 613–637.
2.
BarsadeS. G. (2002). The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47(4), 644–675.
3.
BartunekJ. M.HuangZ.WalshI. J. (2008). The development of a process model of collective turnover. Human Relations, 61(1), 5–38. doi:10.1177/0018726707085944
4.
BentonR. A. (2016). Corporate governance and nested authority: Cohesive network structure, actor-driven mechanisms, and the balance of power in American corporations. American Journal of Sociology, 122(3), 661–713. doi:10.1086/689397
5.
BorgattiS. P.MehraA.BrassD. J.LabiancaG. (2009). Network analysis in the social sciences. Science, 323(5916), 892–895.
6.
BothmaC. F. C.RoodtG. (2013). The validation of the turnover intention scale. SA Journal of Human Resource Management, 11(1), 1–12.
7.
CarterD. R.DeChurchL. A.BraunM. T.ContractorN. S. (2015). Social network approaches to leadership: An integrative conceptual review. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(3), 597–622. doi:10.1037/a0038922
8.
CheckleyM.SteglichC.AngwinD.EndersbyR. (2014). Firm performance and the evolution of cooperative interfirm networks: UK venture capital syndication. Strategic Change, 23(1-2), 107–118.
9.
de KlepperM. C.LabiancaG.SleebosE.AgneessensF. (2017). Sociometric status and peer control attempts: A multiple status hierarchies approach. Journal of Management Studies, 54(1), 1–31.
10.
de KlepperM. C.SleebosE.van de BuntG. G.AgneessensF. (2010). Similarity in friendship networks: Selection or influence? The effect of constraining contexts and non-visible individual attributes. Social Networks, 32(1), 82–90. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.06.003
11.
EmirbayerM. (1997). Manifesto for relational sociology. American Journal of Sociology, 103(2), 281–317.
12.
FeeleyT. H.HwangJ.BarnettG. A. (2008). Predicting employee turnover from friendship networks. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 36(1), 56–73. doi:10.1080/00909880701799790
13.
FelpsW.MitchellT. R.HiekmanD. R.LeeT. W.HoltomB. C.HarmanW. S. (2009). Turnover contagion: How coworkers’ job embeddeness and job search behaviors influence quitting. Academy of Management Journal, 52(3), 545–561.
14.
ForbesM. K.WrightA. G. C.MarkonK. E.KruegerR. F. (2017). Evidence that psychopathology symptom networks have limited replicability. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 126(7), 969–998.
15.
FransenK.DelvauxE.MesquitaB.Van PuyenbroeckS. (2018). The emergence of shared leadership in newly formed teams with an initial structure of vertical leadership: A longitudinal analysis. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 54(2), 140–170.
16.
KalishY. (2013). Harnessing the power of social network analysis to explain organizational phenomena. In CortinaJ. M.LandisR. S. (Eds.), Modern research methods for the study of behavior in organizations (pp. 99–135). New York, NY: Routledge.
17.
KalishY.LuriaG. (2016). Leadership emergence over time in short-lived groups: Integrating expectations states theory with temporal person-perception and self-serving bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101(10), 1474–1486. doi:10.1037/apl0000126
18.
KalishY.LuriaG.TokerS.WestmanM. (2015). Till stress do us part: On the interplay between perceived stress and communication network dynamics. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(6), 1737–1751.
19.
KalishY.RobinsG. L. (2006). Psychological predispositions and network structure: The relationship between individual predispositions, structural holes and network closure. Social Networks, 28(1), 56–84.
20.
KilduffM.BrassD. J. (2010). Organizational social network research: Core ideas and key debates. Academy of Management Annals, 4, 317–357.
21.
KilduffM.TsaiW. (2003). Social networks and organizations. London: Sage.
22.
KleinK. J.LimB.SaltzJ. L.MayerD. M. (2004). How do they get there? An examination of the antecedents of centrality in team networks. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 952–963.
23.
KrackhardtD.HansonJ. (1993). Informal networks: The company behind the chart. Harvard Business Review, 71(4), 104–111.
24.
KrackhardtD.PorterL. W. (1986). The snowball effect—Turnover embedded in communication-networks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(1), 50–55.
25.
LangJ. W. B.BlieseP. D.de VoogtA. (2018). Modeling consensus emergence in groups using longitudinal multilevel methods. Personnel Psychology, 71(2), 255–281.
26.
MerckenL.SaulJ. E.LemaireR. H.ValenteT. W.LeischowS. J. (2015). Coevolution of information sharing and implementation of evidence-based practices among North American tobacco cessation quitlines. American Journal of Public Health, 105(9), 1814–1822.
27.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Mathew effect in science. Science, 159(3810), 56–63.
28.
PorathC. L.GerbasiA.SchorchS. L. (2015). The effects of civility on advice, leadership, and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(5), 1527–1541.
29.
RipleyR. M.SnijdersT. A. B.BodaZ.VorosA.PreciadoP. (2018a). Manual for RSIENA. Oxford, UK: University of Oxford, Nuffiled College.
30.
RipleyR. M.SnijdersT. A. B.BodaZ.VorosA.PreciadoP. (2018b). RSiena package for R (Version 4.0). [Computer software].
31.
RobinsG. (2015). Doing social network research. London: Sage.
32.
SchulteM.CohenN. A.KleinK. K. (2012). The co-evolution of network ties and perceptions of psychological safety. Organization Science, 23(2), 564–581.
33.
SchweinbergerM. (2012). Statistical modeling of network panel data: Goodness-of-fit. British Journal of Statistical and Mathematical Psychology, 63, 263–281.
34.
SnijdersT. A. B. (1996). Stochastic actor-oriented models for network change. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21(1-2), 149–172.
35.
SnijdersT. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 31, 361–395.
36.
SnijdersT. A. B. (2008). Longitudinal methods of network analysis. In ScottJ. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of complexity and system science (pp. 5998–6013). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer Verlag.
37.
SnijdersT. A. B.PattisonP.RobinsG. L.HandcockM. (2006). New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology, 36, 99–153.
38.
SnijdersT. A. B.SteglichC.SchweinbergerM. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In van MontfortK.OudH.SatorraA. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
39.
SnijdersT. A. B.van de BuntG. G.SteglichC. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32(1), 44–60. doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2009.02.004
40.
SteglichC.SnijdersT. A. B.PearsonM. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393.
41.
VeenstraR.SteglichC. (2012). Actor-based model for network and behavior dynamics: A tool to examine selection and influence processes. In LaursenB.LittleT. D.CardN. A. (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 598–618). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
42.
ZuberF. (2015). Spread of unethical behavior in organizations: A dynamic social network perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 131(1), 151–172.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
