Sociological Methods & Research

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (1)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Killworth, P. D.
Right arrow Articles by Shelley, G. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Sociological Methods & Research, Vol. 35, No. 1, 84-112 (2006)
DOI: 10.1177/0049124106289160

Investigating the Variation of Personal Network Size Under Unknown Error Conditions

Peter D. Killworth

National Oceanography Centre, Southampton, UK

Christopher McCarty

University of Florida, Gainesville

Eugene C. Johnsen

University of California, Santa Barbara

H. Russell Bernard

University of Florida, Gainesville

Gene A. Shelley

Georgia State University, Atlanta

This article estimates the variation in personal network size, using respondent data containing two systematic sources of error. The data are the proportion of respondents who, on average, claim to know zero, one, and two people in various subpopulations, such as "people who are widows under the age of 65" or "people who are diabetics." The two kinds of error—transmission error (respondents are unaware that someone in their network is in a subpopulation) and barrier error (something causes a respondent to know more or less than would be expected, in a subpopulation)—are hard to quantify. The authors show how to estimate the shape of the probability density function (pdf) of the number of people known to a random individual by assuming that respondents give what they assume to be accurate responses based on incorrect knowledge. It is then possible to estimate the relative effective sizes of subpopulations and produce an internally consistent theory. These effective sizes permit an evaluation of the shape of the pdf, which, remarkably, agrees with earlier estimates.

Key Words: social networks • errors • probability density function


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?