MSSB ADVANCED RESEARCH SYMPOSIUM ON SOCIAL NETWORKSPROPOSAL:

Samuel LeinhardtDIRECTORSAssociate Professor of SociologyCarnegie-Mellon UniversityPittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15213

nv.

H. Russell BernardAssociate Professor of AnthropologyWest Virginia UniversityMorgantown, West Virginia 26506

33: James A. Davis, Harrison C. White, Frank Harary,Dorwin Cartwright, J. Clyde Mitchell, J. A. Barnes,Fritz Heider, Robert Abelson, Elihu Katz, James A.Coleman, Edward Laumann, Everett Rogers, TheodoreNewcomb, Claude Flament, Anatol Rapoport ,

PARTICIPANTS :

Charles Proctor, Paul Holland, Francois Lorraine,Mark Granovetter, Jack Hunter, Peter Kiliworth,Ove Frank, Anthony Coxon, Nicholas Mullins,Patrick Doreian, Joel Levine, Richard Roistacher,Robert Norman, Scott Bookman, Bo Anderson, ClintonDeSoto, Norman Whitten, Douglas White.

TENTATIVE SITE: Dartmouth College Minary Conference CenterHolderness, New Hampshire

TENTATIVE DATE: September 19-21, 1975

To review and extend the use of network concepts inthe formalization of social and social-perceptualstructure. Perform a retrospective review of thedevelopment of network concepts and applications in avariety of social science contexts; examine the inter-disciplinary qualities inherent in the network approachto structural analysis; outline and critique contem-porary research and methods involving social networksand social-perceptual structures; detail the likelyimpact of this type of formalization on future work inthe social sciences; produce a comprehensive set ofpapers which compare and extend the major networkformalizations of social and relevant cognitivestructure; and, publish these papers in the form ofa conference proceedings.

OBJECTIVES:

1

2

BUDGET:

Air travel (domestic) for 28 @ $175/ ind.

Air travel (international) for 7 @ $1,000/ind.

Ground transport Boston to Holderness for 30 @ $35/ind.

Room and board for 35 for 3 days @ $35/ind./day

Ten extra days for meeting air schedules, site prep., students

Facilities fees, equipment rental, incidental expenses

$ 4,900

7,000

1,050

3,675

350

650

Staff (secretary, graduate students), phones, computertime, organizational meetings

Transcription, reproduction, post and publication

Contents of the Proposal

Review of network research

Conference Rationale

Organization

Participants

Alternates

Notes on participants

Notes on interest

References

2,000

1,500

p. 20

3

brief reviewNetwork theory in social science:

The concept of a network, a set of nodes connected by a set of

relations, provides a useful, intuitively appealing construct for

representing various social and cognitive structures. Their use in

these contexts is often metaphorical in that they are presented as easily

appreciated simplifications of relatively abstract ideas. However,

the use of networks, digraphs, stochastic graphs, or other forms

of structural mathematics to formalize and render empirically

testable a wide variety of theoretical propositions about social and

cognitive structure has been increasing rapidly. To some extent this

rise in formalism is a natural outgrowth of the increasing capability

of social scientists to utilize modern mathematical and statistical

ideas in the construction of theory and appropriate methods. But it also

can be seen as a concerted effort to understand how the actual or

perceived organization of social relationships influences the behavior

of individuals and groups. Broadly speaking, this effort can be

disaggregated into several "schools" distinguishable on the basis

of the size and "reality-nature" of the structures or structural

relations considered, the focus on implications of structure or

structure per se and the methodological approach of the investigator.

The size of the structure analyzed probably provides the most

effective criteria for categorizing usage. Psychologists and social

psychologists who have used network-like ideas to formalize

conceptualizations of cognitive structure have examined the organization

of attitudes, perceptions or sentiments in the minds of individuals.

These are inherently non- observable, small networks whose existence

is inferred by investigators from the responses of individuals to

hypothetical situations or from reports about behavior. The research

question can usually be phrased in terms of what kinds of properties

a socially relevant cognitive relation can have so as to render a

set of felt or perceived relations and objects comfortable, stable,

acceptable or free of tension. Thus, Keider (1944, 1946, 1957)

in his seirinal contribution to social psychology, used literary-

material ss supportive evidence for the principles of balance theory,

a theory which he advanced as a formal codification of the naivepsychology applied by individuals to keep their behavior and sentiments

in proper coordination. Balance theory, as Heider initially proposed

it, dealt in large measure with the influence of perceived relations

among relevant objects on the attitudes of an individual. The

formalization involved, as a model, the now classic P-O-X triad and

specific ets of directed relations within thi:. triad. Heider

was conce ned with small networks, sets of two or three nodes in

which the relation was one individual- s perception or attitude and

in which he social nature of the network resulted from the fact

that the perceptions involved attitudes towards another individual.

It is difficult, i:' not impossible, to gauge the vast impact Heider 's

ideas have had on i ocial psychological and sociological theory.

Suffice it to say that nearly all the balance-like or consistency

theories derive in some measure from his work (see the various reviews

in Abelson, et.al., 1968;and Davis, 1963) and that direct links

can be found to Heider in the work of Abelson, DeSoto, Newcomb,

Cartwright, Harary, Davis, Leinhardt, Holland and Flament.

The work of DeSoto, (for example, DeSoto and Bosley, 1962) andtha recent work of Newcomb (1968) are clearcut extensions of Heider' sco cern with the structural properties of social cognition. DeSoto 'sre earch efforts have involved attempts to elicit from experimental

su jects their opinions about the logical properties of social

re vtionso Newcomb' s work has involved eliciting the opinions of

exi rimental subjects about incomplete or contradictory hypothetical

social situations. The logical properties of relations areinferred by the experimenter. These logical properties are then

presumed to act as constraints on the possible cognitive organization

of perceived social events or attitudes. Thus, they form the set

of structural requirements to which these cognitive networks must

conform. Davis (1963) expands upon the implications of such

constraint sets by tying them to behavior involving socially relevant

actions. In so doing he shows how balance theory as Heider originally

envisaged it can be used as a calculus of attitudinal relations for

explaining propositions as varied as Merton's homophily-heterophily

dichotomy and the voting paradox or cross pressures situation.

While psychologists have traditionally persued properties

underlying the cognitive organization of social relations, interestin the extant organization of relations among individuals has been

more typically a concern of sociologists. However, some social

psychologists have bridged the gap between the two areas. For example,

Newcomb 's (1953) A-B-X theory of interpersonal attraction or

Newcomb «s (1953) A-3-X theory of interpersonal attraction ororientation is quite similar to Heider' s formulation. The main

primary distinction between the approach of researchers interested

In this early work of Newcomb « s graphical methods of structuralanalysis quite similar to Heider 's are used to model the structuralproperties of social relations rather than the structural propertiesof perceptions of social relations. Newcomb ' s was an essentialstatement of concern for pairwise rather than strict ego orientedanalysis. Nonetheless, theoretical sociological interest in applyingHeiderian methods to small-scale social networks was due more toCartwright and Harary than to Newcomb. In their classic formalizationof balance theory (Cartwright and Harary, 1956) graph theory wasused to examine the implications of balance in the extant relationsamong a closed group of individuals. Cartwright and Harary (1956)took Heider 's theory which dealt with organization in an individual'smind and applied it to the organization of interpersonal relations.Davis and Leinhardt (1972) and Leinhardt and Holland (1971) in a

variety of papers have extanded this initial work using notions

difference derives from Newcomb 's specific interest in the organizationof extant relations between at least two individuals. The step takenhere is an important one. The interest in extant relations is a

in cognitive structure and those interested in social structure.

7

derived from French (1956), and Landau (1951-1953). These efforts have

involved the development of statistical models for models of small-scale

social networks as well as generalizations of the models. Cartwright

and Harary (1970) have also considered generalized extensions of their

more deterministic graph theoretic approach.

Another theoretical line of development In this area derives from

Simmel (1955). (See also the review by Levine, 1959.) His work on

networks of ties among three individuals is the earliest explicit

application of network concepts to extant social structure. Simmel 's

concept of dualism or the intersection of persons within groups has

recently been reconsidered by Brieger (1974) and is important in the

algebraic work of White.

Although the application of network ideas in the analysis of small-

scale social systems seems to be a natural sociological issue it was

a psychiatrist who provided the most commonly used device for collecting

data on these networks. Moreno (1932) did this quite early by inventing

the sociometric technique. This is essentially a survey instrument

in which individuals in a group are asked to identify others in the

group to whom they are tied in some socially meaningful way. The

development of analytic techniques for examining sociometric data has

occupied many different kinds of social scientist (see, for example,

Coleman, and Macßae, 1960; Festinger, 1949; Katz, 1951; Katz and Proctor,

1959; Hubbell, 1965; Northway, 1940; Spilerman, 1966). Although these

efforts have focused on decomposing sociometric ties into those

between cliques or status hierarchies, techniques are now evolving

which permit much deeper analysis (Holland and Leinhardt, 1974;

White and Breiger, 1974).

8

A separate theme in the sociological analysis of social networks

has dealt with extant ties among large-scale social systems, in

particular, systems which have no

Although Milgram's (1967) work on

of a national grouping provides a

of such a system's boundaries the

clearcut membership list or boundary

acquaintance ties between members

good example of the nebulousness

interest in this research has

usually been directed towards more circumscribed membership

groups such as elites, professional classes, sets of individuals who

have a common quality or role relation or are associated in some

functional way. One of the distinguishing features of the study of

large-scale social networks by sociologists has been the implicit

importance of a real or potential flow along the network. The flow

may be news or innovations as in Rogers (1962) and Coleman, Katz

and Menzel (1957), or information and influence as in Katz and

Lazarsfeld (1955), Lee (1969) and Granovetter (1974) or scientific

knowledge as in Mullins (1968) or organizational power or decisions

as in Friedell (1967), Levine (1972) and Laumann (1973). The

underlying principle is, however, that, be it a flow of information

about abortionists or jobs, politically acceptable candidates or

seed corn, the structural properties of the social network are

assumed to have important effects on the way in which the flow

spreads, to whom it spreads, the rate of spread and its social and

cognitive consequences. (See also the work of Sapoport, 1961.)

While sociologists of large-scale systems have concentrated on

networks in special groups, particular social attitudes or selected

9

social ties, anthropologists have been quick to point out that

network concepts were the natural choice for a general formal model

of social structure, one which incorporated both latent and active

multiple ties. Radcliffe-Brown (1940) is quite explicit in his identi-

fication of the active and latent ties between individuals as what

ha means by a social structure. Much of his early requests that

nthropologists collect field data on political, acquaintance and

kin ties between people in a wide variety of societal settings are

only recently being acknowledged. A good deal of this renewed

interest among anthropologists in social network data is due to the

work of the British anthropologists Barnes (1972), Bott (1971)

and Mitchell (1969). While some similar work is being performed

by sociologists interested in "urban" or "community" networks

(See Wellman, et.al., 1972) the area is clearly dominated by

anthropological interests. Less concerned with formal models, their

work attempts to determine if the social networks can operate asan alternative explanatory mechanism in understanding aggregatesociological properties of groups or individuals. Here, too,there has been a strong interest in the processes which utilize

networks as against the sociological concern with the organizational

properties inherent in the relations composing the network.Perhaps the best example of the formal network approach to the

study of social structural organization occurs in the work of White (1963)

and White and Lorraine (1971) on kinship structures and multirelational

10

I 'it

graphs. This work uses structural mathematics such as group theoryo

co generate formal models of compound roles, roles whose purpose

is to effect an ordering of social relations among members of a

society. It is intriguing to that White's sociological

work is often motivated by the ideas of the anthropologists Levi

Strauss (1967) and Nadel (1957)

From this last point and by reflection on the stimulation which

psychological interest in cognitive structure has given to the study

of small-scale social structure can be seen a predelection for inter-

disciplinary research questions among researchers using network

concepts. Nowhere is this more clear than in the role statisticians

and mathematicians have played in the development of methodological

_...-. theoretical too_.s for network analysis. Besides the ,_o_>._._;ic

algorithms cited above for organizing matrices of network data,

social scientists have applied comparatively sophisticated tools

to formalize models of network structure and to detect empirical

support for these models. The classic contribution and one which

has had an enormous impact on mathematical sociology and anthropology

is the general description of the use of graph theory for modeling

in Harary, Norman and Cartwright (1965). Similar work was accomplished

by Flament (1963) but on a much smaller scale and from a more

theoretical: orientation. The use of algebraic models by Wnite (1974),

Lorraine and White (1971) and Boyle (1969) represent an alternative

approach to formalization which has the advantage of greater generality

but the disadvantage of less self-evident identification with empirical

observation and is less readily translated into statistical models.

In addition to these two deterministic approaches, there has been a

strong development of statistical tools with which to measure

structural tendencies in network data. Moreno's (1960) and Katz

and Powell's (1957) work represented an essential recognition that a

sociogram was an empirical observation of a structure and, therefore,

had to be considered in light of traditional measurement theory as a

sample taken from a population with an underlying but unobserved

structure whose characteristics must be inferred from those of the

observation. The problems inherent in the sociometric technique

were detailed by Holland and Leinhardt (1973) who also (1974)

developed a statistical theory of average local structural properties

from the approach initiated by Davis and Leinhardt (1972). While

these techniques extend the usability of data on small-scale social

networks and make possible testing a large variety of structural

hypotheses, the problems inherent in gathering data on very large

unbounded networks must be dealt with on the basis of sampling

a subset of nodes from the larger, unknown total. Procedures for

estimating the qualities of particular networks from samples of points

contained in them have been advanced by Frank (1971).

Rationale for the Conference

The us>; of network concepts is rapidly expanding. From the

early classic statements of Simmel, Radclif fe-Brown, and Heider

social scientists have developed sophisticated theories and methods

that begin to describe social organization and behavior with new

12

precision and quantitative power. A conference is needed in which_>

prominent members of the various schools can gather and exchange

views on the utility of the approach, its past contributions andcurrent potential. Since the past history of social network analysis

and theory is one of cross-disciplinary fertilization it seems

particularly appropriate for an interdisciplinary group to attempt

more successful ideas in the field. Furthermore, since formalizationhas come rather easily in this area it would be especially worthwhileto examine the payoff of the use of mathematical formalization inthe social sciences by exploring its utility in its various appli-cations to social networks. With the evident burgeoning of interestin social networks and the rising mathematical sophistication ofsocial scientists, an advanced research symposium on formalism insocial networks is especially timely and likely to be useful and

constructive.

Conference Organization

The conference will be held at a relatively isolated site fora period of three days. It is felt that holding the conference ata site which offers few external enticements but is nonetheless

supportive of close and prolonged interaction will contribute tocommunication among the participants. Thirty-five individuals will be

invited with a list of alternates provided In case selected

participants are unable to attend. Each participant will be invited

on condition of contributing a paper written either jointly with

another participant or individually. While authorship with non-

to consolidate this research and to extend the applicability of the

participants will not be disallowed, only invited participants will

be permitted to attend the conference proceedings. Paper topics

will be assigned by the conference directors through negotiation

with the participants. Papers will cover retrospective reviews of

selected topics by individuals personally involved in the development

of major ideas, critiques of various general approaches, descriptions

of contemporary research and methods and speculative analyses of

future directions. Background papers will be distributed in advance

of the conference and edited versions of conference discussions will

be circulated among participants for editing following the conference

Four to five presentations will be made each day with time for

discussions and critical review by previously assigned individuals

A volume of conference proceedings will be edited by Leinhardt

for eventual publication. Organizational and financial details

r^arding location, provisions, assignments and facilities will

be handled by Carnegie-Mellon University staff or other qualified

individuals hired by them for this purpose.

Tentative participants

Professional Nonindividual Institution Field US? Contacted? Response

Fritz Heider Kansas Psychology YesYesYesNo

PositivePositivePositive

9 Theodore NewcombRobert AbelsonClinton DeSoto

MichiganYale

11

I!J .

/,

Johns HopkinsMich. St.John HunterJ A

11. Small-scale social structure: properties of structures

6. James A. Davis Chicago7 . Tlm-i.Ti t. Cnyi-T.rri o-h f Mi nh .

era

Dorwin Cartwright Michigan8. Harrison White Harvard9. Francois Lorraine Quebec0. Anthony Coxon Edinburgh

13. Claude Flament Lab. Soc. Res.,4. Samuel Leinhardt Carnegie-Mellon,5. H. Russell Bern, rd W. Virginia

SociologyPsychologySociology

ii

n

n

Anthropology

YesYesYes

Canada YesScotland No

YesNo

France NoYesYes

PositivePositivePositivePositive

Positive

PositivePositive

Elihu Katz JerusalemChicago

Sociology Israel Nolb.17. James Coleman

Edward LaumannEverett RogersMark GranovetterNicholas MullinsJoel Levine

ii YesYesNo

PositivePositiveChicago ii10.

19. Mich. St.Harvard

Communications20. Sociology Yes

YesYes

PositivePositivePositive

21 Indiana ;:22. Dartmouth

23. j . Clyde Mitchell ManchesterJ. A. Barnes Cambridge

Anthropology England No" England No24 Cambridge

25. Bo Anderson Mich. St. Sociology YesAnthropology Yes

PositivePositive26. Norman Whit ten Illinois

" No27. Douglas Wnite PittsburghV. Animals

28. Scott Boorman Pennsylvania Sociology No

Cognitive: properties of relations

11. Patrick Doreian Pittsburgh12. Richard Roistacher Illinois

111 . Large-scale

g

ocial structure: implications of general properties

IV. Large-scale social structure:: implications of local properties

Tentative participants continued)

Professional Nonindividual Institution Field US? Contacted Response

VI. Models and methods

Frank HararyRobert NormanPeter KillworthAnatol RapoportPaul Holland

MichiganDartmouthOxford

Mathematics29. YesYesYesYesYesYesNo

PositivePositivePositivePositivePositivePositive

ii30.I!jl. England

CanadaTorontoNBSR

11jl

Statisticsjj.■.-_ Ove Frank Lund ii Sweden.-"-..

Charles Proctor N. Carolina St i ■j_>.

16

NonU.S

CanadaCanada

Canada

Alternates

Professionalindividual Field

Charles KadushinIvan Chase

SociologySociologySociologySociologySociologySociologySociologyPsychologyPsychologyPsychology

Howard AlditchNancy HowellPaul BernardMichael SchwartzBarry WellmanRenato TagiuriJames KuetheJulian Morrisett

Institution

ColumbiaDartmouthCornellTorontoMontrealSUNY S.B.TorontoHarvardSUNY Buf .Mich.

17

Brief Notes on the participants

The participants have been categorized by one major area of research

involving network concepts (Roman numeral). Clearly, these categories

are arbitrary and overly constrictuve since many of the listed individuals

have at one time or another engaged in research in several different or

overlapping categories. Furthermore, the categories are designed to

emphasize differences in concerns rather than similarities. Thus, they

rarely fit an individual well. They are used here solely for organizationalpurposes.

(I) The first category contains individuals whose relevant research

activities have concentrated in the area- of cognitive organization of

social perceptions or attitudes. Primarily social psychologists, the

research conducted by this group runs the gamut of the perceived logical

properties of an affective attitude, as in the work of Heider, DeSoto

and Newcomb, through dynamic models of balance in the work of Hunter.

(II) The second category contains individuals who are sociologists or

social psychologists interested primarily in modeling the extant structure

of bounded small-scale social systems. They include individuals such as

Leinhardt whose interest is in the average properties of local conditions

and others such as Davis, Cartwright, White and Flament who have emphasized

specific global models of structure in social networks.

II) The third group again contains sociologists but here the interest has

focused less on the particular organizational properties of social networks

and more on network structure as a sort of independent variable influencing

other variables of primary concern. Moreover, the social systems studied

by these individuals usually are less well bounded than those of group

18

)

II and include networks of ties between individual members of communities,

professional groups, elites, scientific subgroups, and large institutions.

(IV) The fourth group is one composed principally of anthropologists.

The interest here has emphasized lower order structural conditions in

large unbounded social systems. Anthropologists who study social networks

often identify the concept as a model for general social structural properties

and gather field data on latent ties for evidence of the underlying

structure which, when operationalized by appropriate circumstances, becomes

manifest social organization. Different networks thus lead to different

behavioral organizations and different cultural traditions are fostered

oj these organizational differences.

(V) While this fifth group contains only one individual, the study of

the social organization of animals has a long tradition of reliance on

network concepts. The success of the methods and models used in the

study of non-human social organization must be considered carefully in

light of evolutionary theory and comparative techniques. (See Landau, 1951-1953

(VT) Although some social scientists are highly sophisticated mathe-

matically and methodologically, most are not. In this last group are

both mathematicians and statisticians who have evidenced a continuing

interest in the formal models and methods underlying the use of network

concepts in the social sciences. The group includes graph theorists

such as Harary, survey statisticians such as Frank and data analysts

interested in stochastic graph theory such as Holland.

These individuals have been chosen as participants because of the

significance of their contributions in the past or the very great

uture promise of their work. Many have also manifested a capability

of the conference.

woLe on mtercs the conference

A time of submission of this proposal, 24 of the 35 tentativej.

participants have been contacted by telephone. Each contacted

individual has responded quite positively and enthusiastically andwas willing to commit himself to an original paper or critical

ciscussion.

m

for bridging disciplinary bounds and should, therefore, be able tointeract effectively and productively in the interdisciplinary setting

20

Reference

Barnes, J. A. (1972) "Social Networks," Addison-Wesley Modular Publications#26.

Bott, E. (1971) Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms and ExternalRelationships in Ordinary Urban Families, 2nd ed. London: Tavistock1971.

Boyle, R. P. (1969) "Algebraic systems for normal and hierarchicalsociograms," Sociometry, 32: 99-119.

Breiger, R. (1974) "The duality of persons and groups," Social Forces,forthcoming.

Cartwright, D. and F. Harary (1956) "Structural balance: A generalizationof Heider 's Theory," Psychological Review, 63: 277-293.

, (1970) "Ambivalence and indifference in generalizationsof structural balance," Behavioral Science, 15: 497-513.

Coleman, J. A., E. Katz and N. Menzel (1957) "The diffusion of aninnovation among physicians," Sociometry, 20: 253-270.

Coleman, J. A. and D. Macßae, Jr. (I960) "Electronic processing ofsociometric data for groups up to 1000 in size," American SociologicalReview, 25: 722-727.

Davis, J. A. (1967) "Clustering and structural balance in graphs," HumanRelations, 20: 181-187.

(1963) "Structural balance, mechanical solidarity and

Davis, J. A. and S. Leinhardt (1972) "The structure of positive inter-personal relations in small groups," in J. Berger, M. Zelditch and3. Anderson, eds., Sociological Theories in Progress, v. 11, Boston:Houghton Mifflin, 218-251.

DeSoto, C. and J. J. Bosley (1962) "The cognitive structure of a socialstructure," journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 64: 303-307.

Festiager, L. (1949) "The analysis of sociograms using matrix algebra,"Human Relations, 2: 153-158.

Flament, C. (1963) Applications of Graph Theory to Group Structure,Prentice-Hall: New York.

Abelson, R. P., E. \ronson, W. J. McGuire, T. M. Newcomb, M. J. Rosenbergand P. H. Tan: onbaum (1968) Theories of Cognitive Consistency:A Sourcebook,, "and McNally: Chicago.

interpersonal relations," American Journal of Sociology, 68: 442-462.

Frank, 0. (1971) Statistical Inference in Graphs, FOA Repro : Stockholm.

21

References (continued)

Friedell, M. (1967) "Organizations as semilottices," American SociologicalLeview, 32: 46-54. a

Heider, F. (1944) "Social perception and phenomenal causality,"Psychological Review, 51: 358-374.

(1946), "Attitudes and cognitive organization," Journal of

Holland, P. W. and S. Leinhardt (1974) "The statistical analysis of localstructure in social networks," Sociological Methodology, 1976,forthcoming .

(1973) "The structural implications of measurement

" (1971) "Transitivity in structural models of smallgroups," Comparative Group Studies, 2: 107-124.

Hubbell, C„ (1965) "An input-output approach to clique identification "Sociometry, 28: 377-399.

Katz, L. (1951) "The distribution of the number of isolates in a socialgroup," Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23.

Katz, L. and J.H. Powell (1954) "The number of locally restricteddirected graphs," Proceedings of the American Mathematical Association,5: 621-626. " ' ~

Katz, L. and C. H. Proctor (1959) "The concept of configuration ofinterpersonal relations in a group as a time-dependent stochasticprocess," Psychometrika, 24: 317-327.

Landau, H. G. (1951-1953) "On dominance relations and the structure ofanimal societies, : I, II and III" Bulletin of MathematicalBiophysics 13: 1-19; 245-262; 15: 143-148.

French, J.R.P., Jr. (1956) "A formal theory of social power," PsychologicalReview, 32: 46-54. —z fi

Granovetter, Mark (1974) Getting a Job, Harvard: Cambridge.

,rary, F., R. Z. Norman and D. Cartwright, Structural Models: AnIntroduction to the Theory of Directed Graphs, N.Y. : Wiley.

Psychology, 21: 107-112.

. " (1958), The Psychology of Interpersonal Relations, Wiley:New York.

error in sociometry," Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 3; 85-111.

Katz, E. and P. Lazarsfeld (1955) Personal Influence, Free Press: Glencoe.

(continued)fcrcnces

Lee, N. (1969) The Search for an Abortionist, U. of Chicago Press:Chicago .

evine, D. (1959) "The structure of Simmel 's social thought," inK. Wolff, ed., Essays on Sociology, Philosophy and Aestheticsby George Simmel, New York: Harper and Row.

Levine, J. H. (1972) "The sphere of influence," American SociologicalReview, 37: 14-27.

Mitchell, C. (1969) Social Networks in Urban Situations, Manchester UPress: Manchester, G.B.

Disease,,

Mullins, No (1968) "The distribution -of social and cultural propertiesin informal communication networks among biological scientists,"American Sociological Review, 33: 786-797.

Nadel, S. F. (1957) The Theory of Social Structure, Loudon: Cohen andWest.

Newcomb, To (1963) "An approach to the study of communicative acts,"Psychological Review, 60-: 393-404.

. (1968) "Interpersonal balance," in Abelson, et.alTheories of Cognitive Consistency, 28-51.

Northway, M. (1940) "A method for depicting social relationships obtainedby sociometric testing," Sociometry, 3: 144-150.

Rapoport, A. and W. J. liorvath, (1961) "A study of a large sociogram,"Sociometry 6: 279-291.

Laumann, B. 0. and F. U. Pappi (1973) "New directions in the study ofcommunity elites," American Sociological Review, 38: 212-230.

/ / /

Levi-Strauss, C. (1967) Les structures elementaires de la parente,The Hague: Mouton.

lilgram, S. (1967) "The small world problem," Psychology Today, 1: 61-67

Moreno, J. L. (i960) The Sociometry Reader, Glencoe: Free Press

(1934) Who Shall Survive? Wash. D.C: Nervous and Mental

Radcliffe-Brown, A.Ro (1940) "On social structure," Journal of theRoyal Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, 70: 1-12

Rogers, E. M. (1962) The Diffusion of Innovations, N.Y. : Free Press.

231

J

Preferences (continued)

Wellman, B. et.al. (1972) "Community-Network-Communication: an annotatedbibliography," Council of Planning Librarians #282-283.

White, H. (1963a) "Uses of Mathematics in Sociology," in J. D. Charles-worth, ed„, Mathematics and the Social Sciences, Phil: AmericanAcademy of Political and Social Science.

White, H. and R„ Breiger (1974) "Multiple networks in small populations,I & II," Harvard University mimeo.

White, H. and F. Lorraine (1971) "Structural equivalence of individualsin social networks," Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1: 49-80.

Simmel, G. (1955) Conflict and the Web of Group Affiliations, N.Y. :Free Press.

.;..

_«."*...

Spilerman, S. (1966) "Structural analysis and the generation of sociograms," Behavioral Science, 11: 312-318.

(1963b) An Anatomy of Kinship: Mathematical Modelsof Cumulated Roles, N.Y. : Prentice-Hall.