What makes a network go round? Exploring the structure of a strong component with exponential random graph models

Uncovering the Structural Underpinnings of Political Discussion Networks: Evidence From an Exponential Random Graph Model

“…Although preferential attachment is a fairly robust and well‐known tendency across various empirical social networks (e.g., Newman, ), this empirical pattern of significant and negative degree distribution effects (DWD‐out) coupled with the significant and positive transitivity tendency (GWESP) is, indeed, not uncommon (Box‐Steffensmeier & Christenson, ; Robins et al, ). Such patterns suggest that the social context of political discussions could be characterized in terms of a core‐periphery structure based on a “localized closure,” similar to the results observed in Gondal and McLean () or in Box‐Steffensmeier and Christenson (). In other words, the underlying social processes of political discussion networks create several (often interconnected) subgroups of mutually overlapping social circles while preventing the emergence of few, extremely centralized actors that dominate the entire political discussion network.…”

“…Furthermore, to the extent that the number of commonly connected actors increases (e.g., A and C have multiple friends in common), there is a greater chance of similarity between the unconnected actors (Robins, Pattison, & Wang, ). This transitivity mechanism has been found to be one of the strongest predictors of tie‐formation at a dyadic level in various contexts (e.g., Box‐Steffensmeier & Christenson, ; Louch, ), as well as the factor directly responsible for the creation of densely interconnected, cohesive subgroups within a network (e.g., Gondal & McLean, ). Thus, transitivity will significantly predict the probability of ties being present in political discussion networks ( Hypothesis 8 ).…”

The structure of emotional support networks in families affected by Lynch syndrome

“…Relatedly, the network process of reciprocity, whereby two individuals mutually support one another, may also occur as families negotiate their shared stressor of LS (Lawrence & Schigelone, 2002). Reciprocity may take a general form where anyone who provides emotional support to another benefits from receiving mutual support from that same other regardless of their testing status, or it may be conditional on testing-status homophily or heterophily (e.g., homophilous reciprocity from Gondal & McLean (2013)). That is, general reciprocation of support is common within families (Stoller, 1985;Antonucci & Jackson, 1990); individuals mutually rely on one another as part of most communal coping strategies.…”

Reply to “Comment on Geodesic Cycle Length Distributions in Delusional and Other Social Networks”

“…For example Gondal and McLean (2013) find that Markov models do not converge, from which nothing much can be learned. They perhaps learn more from the failure to converge of some slightly more parsimonious versions of the final model (see their footnote 10).…”