Cluster analysis of multiplex networks: Defining composite network measures

Abstract Social relations are multiplex by nature: actors in a group are tied together by various types of relationships. To understand and explain group processes it is, therefore, important to study multiple social networks simultaneously in a given group. However, with multiplexity the complexity of data also increases. Although some multivariate network methods (e.g. Exponential Random Graph Models, Stochastic Actor-oriented Models) allow to jointly analyze multiple networks, modeling becomes complicated when it focuses on more than a few (2–4) network dimensions. In such cases, dimension reduction methods are called for to obtain a manageable set of variables. Drawing on existing statistical methods and measures, we propose a procedure to reduce the dimensions of multiplex network data measured in multiple groups. We achieve this by clustering the networks using their pairwise similarities, and constructing composite network measures as combinations of the networks in each resulting cluster. The procedure is demonstrated on a dataset of 21 interpersonal network dimensions in 18 Hungarian high-school classrooms. The results indicate that the network items organize into three well-interpretable clusters: positive, negative, and social role attributions. We show that the composite networks defined on these three relationship groups overlap but do not fully coincide with the network measures most often used in adolescent research, such as friendship and dislike.

[1]  G. Homans The human group , 1952 .

[2]  Fiona Steele,et al.  Analysis of Multivariate Social Science Data , 2008 .

[3]  Ulrik Brandes,et al.  Network ensemble clustering using latent roles , 2011, Adv. Data Anal. Classif..

[4]  Robert R. Sokal,et al.  A statistical method for evaluating systematic relationships , 1958 .

[5]  David Krackhardt,et al.  PREDICTING WITH NETWORKS: NONPARAMETRIC MULTIPLE REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF DYADIC DATA * , 1988 .

[6]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Canonical Analysis of the Composition and Structure of Social Networks , 1989 .

[7]  A. Arenas,et al.  Mathematical Formulation of Multilayer Networks , 2013, 1307.4977.

[8]  P. Legendre Species associations: the Kendall coefficient of concordance revisited , 2005 .

[9]  Daniel J. Brass,et al.  Network Analysis in the Social Sciences , 2009, Science.

[10]  R. Hanneman Introduction to Social Network Methods , 2001 .

[11]  E. Lazega Introduction : Collegial Phenomenon : The Social Mechanisms of Cooperation Among Peers in a Corporate Law Partnership , 2001 .

[12]  David Krackhardt,et al.  Sensitivity of MRQAP Tests to Collinearity and Autocorrelation Conditions , 2007, Psychometrika.

[13]  J. Neale,et al.  ASSESS: Adjustment Scales for Sociometric Evaluation of Secondary-School Students , 1978, Journal of abnormal child psychology.

[14]  K. Dodge,et al.  Peer group behavior and social status. , 1990 .

[15]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics , 2010, Soc. Networks.

[16]  C. Kadushin Understanding Social Networks: Theories, Concepts, and Findings , 2011 .

[17]  W. Bukowski,et al.  Children's peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. , 1993, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  William M. Rand,et al.  Objective Criteria for the Evaluation of Clustering Methods , 1971 .

[19]  J. Coleman The Adolescent Society , 1961 .

[20]  S. Boorman,et al.  Social Structure from Multiple Networks. I. Blockmodels of Roles and Positions , 1976, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  A. Cillessen,et al.  Understanding Popularity in the Peer System , 2005 .

[22]  V. Batagelj,et al.  Comparing resemblance measures , 1995 .

[23]  M. Cugmas,et al.  On comparing partitions , 2015 .

[24]  K. Dodge,et al.  Dimensions and types of social status: A cross-age perspective. , 1982 .

[25]  T. J. Berndt,et al.  The Features and Effects of Friendship in Early Adolescence. , 1982 .

[26]  C. Fischer What Do We Mean by 'Friend'? An Inductive Study* , 1982 .

[27]  J. Davis Statistical analysis of pair relationships: symmetry, subjective consistency and reciprocity. , 1968, Sociometry.

[28]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications , 1994 .

[29]  Stanley Wasserman,et al.  Correspondence and canonical analysis of relational data , 1990 .

[30]  C. Prell Social Network Analysis: History, Theory and Methodology , 2011 .

[31]  Thomas J. Bemdt,et al.  The Features and Effects of Friendship in Early Adolescence , 2005 .

[32]  Camille Roth,et al.  Natural Scales in Geographical Patterns , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[33]  Garry Robins,et al.  Exponential random graph models for social networks: theories, methods and applications , 2012 .

[34]  M. M. Meyer,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Multiple Sociometric Relations. , 1985 .

[35]  J. S. Wiggins,et al.  The Peer Nomination Inventory: An Empirically Derived Sociometric Measure of Adjustment in Preadolescent Boys , 1961 .

[36]  John Skvoretz,et al.  8. Comparing Networks across Space and Time, Size and Species , 2002 .

[37]  Ferenc Szidarovszky,et al.  Simultaneous-direct blockmodeling for multiple relations in Pajek , 2015, Soc. Networks.

[38]  M. Kendall,et al.  The Problem of $m$ Rankings , 1939 .

[39]  John Scott,et al.  Using Correspondence Analysis for Joint Displays of Affiliation Networks , 2005 .

[40]  Ann S. Masten,et al.  A revised class play method of peer assessment. , 1985 .

[41]  Charles Carroll,et al.  Canonical correlation analysis: Assessing links between multiplex networks , 2006, Soc. Networks.

[42]  E. Bower,et al.  Early Identification of Emotionally Handicapped Children in School , 1961 .

[43]  Alessandro Lomi,et al.  A model for the multiplex dynamics of two-mode and one-mode networks, with an application to employment preference, friendship, and advice , 2013, Soc. Networks.

[44]  John Skvoretz,et al.  Relations, Species, and Network Structure , 2002, J. Soc. Struct..

[45]  F. James Rohlf,et al.  Comparing Numerical Taxonomic Studies , 1981 .

[46]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Measuring Tie Strength , 1984 .

[47]  F. J. Roethlisberger,et al.  Management and the Worker , 1941 .

[48]  E. G. Pekarik,et al.  The Pupil Evaluation Inventory. A Sociometric Technique for Assessing Children's Social Behavior. , 1976 .

[49]  Michael Szell,et al.  Multirelational organization of large-scale social networks in an online world , 2010, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.