Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T01:33:45.042Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multivariate dynamics of one-mode and two-mode networks: Explaining similarity in sports participation among friends

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 June 2018

KAYO FUJIMOTO ,
TOM A. B. SNIJDERS  and
THOMAS W. VALENTE
KAYO FUJIMOTO
Affiliation:
Center for Health Promotion and Prevention Research, Department of Health Promotion & Behavioral Sciences, School of Public Health, The University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, 7000 Fannin Street, UCT 2514, Houston, TX 77030-5401, USA (e-mail: Kayo.Fujimoto@uth.tmc.edu)
TOM A. B. SNIJDERS
Affiliation:
Nuffield College, Oxford University, New Road, Oxford OX1 1NF, UK Department of Sociology, University of Groningen, Grote Rozenstraat 31, 9712 TG Groningen, the Netherlands (e-mail: Tom.Snijders@nuffield.ox.ac.uk)
THOMAS W. VALENTE
Affiliation:
Department of Preventive Medicine, Keck School of Medicine, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90032-3628, USA (e-mail: tvalente@usc.edu)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We examined social mechanisms that account for similarity in the social context of school-sponsored extracurricular sports activities among friends. We distinguish two social mechanisms: “shared sports activities that lead to friendship,” whereby friendship formation and maintenance are conditioned by joint sports participation, and “friendship that leads to shared sports activities,” a form of social influence whereby adolescents join or maintain certain sports activities based on their friends' choices. Using a longitudinal sample of 1,776 10th graders at five high schools in Southern California, we employed a stochastic actor-oriented multivariate dynamic model to model the dynamic interplay between the two-mode affiliation network of adolescents' participation in sports activities and the one-mode friendship network. As a corresponding descriptive method, we propose a quantitative measure for the relative strength of the two-mentioned mechanisms as explanations of the association between the one-mode and the two-mode network. Further, we introduce two specifications that represent homophily effects in the two-mode network and apply them to test gender homophily in sports participation. The results provide strong evidence for both mechanisms, with friendship leading to shared sport activities as stronger than shared sports activities leading to friendships in explaining adolescents' friendships with co-participants.

Keywords

peer influencefriendship networkssocial contextstochastic actor-oriented network dynamic modelsportsextracurricular activity participationtwo-mode homophily
Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 2018 , pp. 370 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Barber, B. L., Stone, M., Hunt, J., & Eccles, J. S. (2005). Benefits of activity participation: The roles of identity affirmation and peer group norm sharing. In Mahoney, J. L., Larson, R., & Eccles, J. S. (Eds.), Organized activities as contexts of development: Extracurricular activities, after school and community programs (pp. 185–209). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc Inc.Google Scholar
Batagelj, V., & Bren, M. (1995). Comparing resemblance measures. Journal of Classification, 12, 73–90.Google Scholar
Block, P. (2015). Reciprocity, transitivity, and the mysterious three-cycle. Social Networks, 40, 163–173.Google Scholar
Block, P., & Grund, T. (2014). Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks. Network Science, 2 (2), 189–212.Google Scholar
Brown, B. B., Eicher, S. A., & Petrie, S. (1986). The importance of peer group (“crowd”) affiliation in adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 9 (1), 73–96.Google Scholar
Brown, B. B., & Lohr, M. J. (1987). Peer group affiliation and adolescent self-esteem: An integration of ego identity and symbolic interaction theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52 (1), 47–55.Google Scholar
Cheadle, J. E., & Schwadel, P. (2012). The ‘friendship dynamics of religion,’ or the ‘religious dynamics of friendship’? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. Social Science Research, 41 (5), 1198–1212.Google Scholar
Cheadle, J. E., Stevens, M., Williams, D. T., & Goosby, B. J. (2013). The differential contributions of teen drinking homophily to new and existing friendships: An empirical assessment of assortative and proximity selection mechanisms. Social Science Research 42, 1297–1310.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1961). The adolescent society: The social life of teenagers and its impact on education. New York: Free Press of Glencoe.Google Scholar
de Klepper, M., Sleebos, E., Van De Bunt, G., & Agneessens, F. (2010). Similarity in friendship networks: Selection or influence? The effect of constraining contexts and non-visible individual attributes. Social Networks, 32, 82–90.Google Scholar
de la Haye, K., Robins, G., Mohr, P., & Wilson, C. (2011). Homophily and contagion as explanations for weight similarities among adolescent friends. Journal of Adolescent Health, 49 (4), 421–427.Google Scholar
Doreian, P., & Conti, N. (2012). Social context, spatial structure and social network structure. Social Networks, 34, 32–46.Google Scholar
Easley, D., & Kleinberg, J. (2010). Networks, crowds, and markets. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S., & Barber, B. L. (1999). Student council, volunteering, basketball, or marching band: What kind of extracurricular involvement matters? Journal of Adolescent Research, 14 (1), 10–43.Google Scholar
Eccles, J. S., Barber, B. L., Stone, M., & Hunt, J. (2003). Extracurricular activities and adolescent development. Journal of Social Issues, 59 (4), 865–889.Google Scholar
Eckert, P. (1989). Jocks and Burnouts: Social Categories and Identity in the High School. New York: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58 (3), 154–165.Google Scholar
Feld, S. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86 (5), 1015–1035.Google Scholar
Feld, S. (1982). Structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47, 797–801.Google Scholar
Frank, K. A., Muller, C., & Muller, A. S. (2013). The embeddedness of adolescent friendship nominations: The formation of social capital in emergent network structures. American Journal of Sociology, 119 (1), 216–253.Google Scholar
Frank, K. A., Muller, C., Schiller, K. S., Riegle-Crumb, C., Mueller, A. S., Crosnoe, R., & Pearson, J. (2008). The social dynamics of mathematics course-taking in high schools. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (6), 1645–1696.Google Scholar
Fredricks, J. A., Alfeld-Liro, C. J., Hruda, L. Z., Eccles, J. S., Patrick, H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). A qualitative exploration of adolescents' commitment to athletics and the arts. Journal of Adolescent Research, 17, 68–97.Google Scholar
Friedkin, N. (1998). A structural theory of social influence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K., Snijders, T. A. B., & Valente, T. W. (2017). Popularity breeds contempt: The evolution of reputational dislike relations and friendships in high school. Social Networks, 48, 100–109.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K., & Valente, T. W. (2013). Alcohol peer influence from participating in organized school activities among U.S. adolescents: A network approach. Health Psychology, 32 (10), 1084–1092.Google Scholar
Fujimoto, K., Wang, P., & Valente, T. W. (2013). The decomposed affiliation exposure model: A network approach to segregating peer influences from crowds and organized sports. Network Science, 1 (2), 154–169.Google Scholar
Giordano, P. C. (2003). Relationships in Adolescence. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 257–281.Google Scholar
Hallinan, M. T. (1976). Friendship patterns in open and traditional classrooms. Sociology of Education, 49, 254–265.Google Scholar
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Huisman, M., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2008). Treatment of non-response in longitudinal network data. Social Networks, 30, 297–308.Google Scholar
Knecht, A. B., Burk, W. J., Weesie, J., & Steglich, C. (2010). Friendship and alcohol use in early adolescence: A multilevel social network approach. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21 (2), 475–487.Google Scholar
Krohn, M. D. (1986). The web of conformity: A network approach to the explanation of delinquent behavior. Social Problems, 33 (6), S81–S93.Google Scholar
Krohn, M. D., Massey, J. L., & Zielinski, M. (1988). Role overlap, network multiplexity, and adolescent deviant behavior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51 (4), 346–356.Google Scholar
Leenders, R. A. J. (1996). Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21 (1–2), 133–148.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1991). Social approval, fertility and female labour market behaviour. In Siegers, J., de Jong-Gierveld, J., & van Imhoff, E. (Eds.), Female labour market behaviour and fertility: A rational choice approach (pp. 32–58). Berlin/New York: Springer Verlag.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (1996). Continuities in the theory of social production functions. In Lindenberg, S. & Ganzeboom, H. B. G. (Eds.), Verklarende sociologie: Opstellen voor Reinhard Wippler (pp. 169–184). Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (2001). Social rationality versus rational egoism. In Turner, J. (Ed.), Handbook of sociological theory (pp. 635–668). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (2015). Groups, sociology of. In Wright, J. (Ed.), International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences (2nd ed.) (vol. 10, pp. 434–440). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Loder, T. L., & Hirsch, B. J. (2003). Inner-city youth development organizations: The salience of peer ties among early adolescent girls. Applied Developmental Science, 7 (1), 2–12.Google Scholar
Lomi, A., & Stadtfeld, C. (2014). Social networks and social settings: Developing a coevolutionary view. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie, 66 (1), 395–415.Google Scholar
Lospinoso, J. (2012). Statistical models for social network dynamics. DPhil dissertation. Department of Statistics, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
Lubbers, M. J., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). A comparison of various approaches to the exponential random graph model: A reanalysis of 102 student networks in school classes. Social Networks, 29, 489–507.Google Scholar
Martin-Storey, A., Cheadle, J. E., Skalamera, J., & Crosnoe, R. (2015). Exploring the social integration of sexual minority youth across high school contexts. Child Development, 86, 965–975.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.Google Scholar
Mercken, L., Candel, M., Willems, P. & de Vries, H. (2009a). Social influence and selection effects in the context of smoking behavior: Changes during early and mid adolescence. Health Psychology, 28 (1), 73–82.Google Scholar
Mercken, L., Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. & De Vries, H. (2009b). Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior: Social network analyses in six European countries. Social Science & Medicine, 69 (10), 1506–1514.Google Scholar
Mercken, L., Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C., Vertiainen, E. & de Vries, H. (2010). Smoking-based selection and influence in gender-segregated friendship networks: A social network analysis of adolescent smoking. Addiction, 105, 1280–1289.Google Scholar
Mercken, L., Steglich, C., Sinclair, P., Holliday, J., & Moore, L. (2013). A longitudinal social network analysis of peer influence, peer selection, and smoking behavior among adolescents in British schools. Health Psychology, 31 (4), 450–459.Google Scholar
Nieboer, A., & Lindenberg, S. (2002). Substitution, buffers and subjective well-being: A hierachical approach. In Gullone, E. & Cummins, R. A. (Eds.), The university of subjective well-being indicators (vol. 16, pp. 175–189). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
Osgood, W. D., Ragan, D. T., Wallace, L., Gest, S. D., Feinberg, M. E., & Moody, J. (2013). Peers and the emergence of alcohol use: Influence and selection processes in adolescent friendship networks. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23, 500–512.Google Scholar
Portes, A. (1998). Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.Google Scholar
Preciado, P., Snijders, T. A. B., Burk, W. J., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2012). Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social Networks, 34 (1), 18–31.Google Scholar
R Development Core Team. (2011). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.Google Scholar
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A., & Preciado, P. (2017). Manual for RSiena version 1.1-289 technical report. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College.Google Scholar
Schaefer, D. R., Simpkins, S. D., Vest, A. E., & Price, C. D. (2011). The contribution of extracurricular activities to adolescent friendships: New insights through social network analysis. Developmental Psychology, 47, 1141–1152.Google Scholar
Skvoretz, J., & Agneessens, F. (2007). Reciprocity, multiplexity, and exchange: Measures. Quality & Quantity, 41, 341–357.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology, 31 (1), 361–395.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B. (2016). The multiple flavours of multilevel issues for networks. In Lazega, E., & Snijders, T. A. B. (Eds.), Multilevel network analysis for the social sciences: Theory, Methods and Applications (pp. 15–46). Cham: Springer.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., Lomi, A. & Torlò, V. J. (2013). A model for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice. Social Networks, 35, 265–276.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & Schweinberger, M. (2007). Modeling the co-evolution of networks and behavior. In Montfort, K. V., Oud, H. & Satorra, A. (Eds.), Longitudinal models in the behavioral and related sciences (pp. 41–71). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32, 44–60.Google Scholar
Steglich, C. E. G., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40 (1), 329–393.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W. (2010). Social networks and health: Models, methods, and applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W. (2012). Network interventions. Science, 337, 49–53.Google Scholar
Valente, T. W., Fujimoto, K., Unger, J. B., Soto, D., & Meeker, D. (2013). Variations in network boundary and type: A study of adolescent peer influences. Social Networks, 35 (3), 309–316.Google Scholar
van Duijn, M. A. J., Zeggelink, E. P. H., Huisman, M., Stokman, F. N., & Wasseur, F. W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 153–191.Google Scholar
Veenstra, R., Dijkstra, J. K., Steglich, C. & Van Zalk, M. H. W. (2013). Network–behavior dynamics. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 23 (3), 399–412.Google Scholar
Wang, P., Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Lazega, E. (2013). Exponential random graph models for multilevel networks. Social Networks, 35 (1), 96–115.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Fujimoto et al. supplementary material

Fujimoto et al. supplementary material 1

Download Fujimoto et al. supplementary material(File)
File 52.5 KB