Social Network Blog - r10

Link to Assignment 2, Part 1 Website: Link

Originating Tie Strength

Question #1: What is the strength of the tie between the originating alter and the 2nd alter?

Of the 6 class members for which we have data, no one passed on their folders to extreme ties (either very weak or very strong). Both of the 2nd alters who had strong ties to the originating passed on the folder. Most moderate ties passed on the folder. No weak ties passed on the folder. Thus, “tie strength” appears to positively influence whether or not the folder is passed along. Nevertheless, it is important to recognize that more data points would further illuminate this hypothesis.

Granovetter explained that weak ties are often the sources of information, a type of bridge to groups to whom an individual might otherwise not be connected and from whom an individual might not otherwise get information. It is not possible to determine whether weak ties or strong ties helped move the Polley folders closer to the target, since that data is missing. However, based on the very limited data from the Yoon group, it appears that weak ties between the originating and 2nd alters were less effective than strong ties (since of the chains that were completed, 67% began with weak ties and 80% began with strong ties). Such a finding is consistent with Wellman’s argument that people “appear to get most of their social support – of all kinds – through their small number of strong ties” (p.566). In this case, the social support is coming in the form of “small services,” since passing on the folder was often seen as a favor.

Size of “Small World”

Question #2: What is the average number of links for both (a) completed and (b) incomplete chains?

Completed Chains: 4 1/2
Incomplete Chains: 2 1/3

Both these numbers are lower than the “6 degrees of separation” found by Milgram and Milgram/Korte. Nevertheless, our class’s findings are consistent with Stevenson et al.’s finding that “Small world studies in organizations have shown, given the relatively clear boundaries in organizations, the number of intermediaries between a starter and target is smaller.” Clearly, the University of Pennsylvania contains fewer people than the United States, and this comparison is reflected in the degrees of separation.

An interesting point is that our results demonstrate that, somehow, everyone in the class is connected to Polley. Thus, the theory mentioned in Milgram’s study that perhaps there are clusters of people in the world who are not connected to each other does not apply here. To explain, 2 folders did reach Polley, demonstrating that any of the folders that did not reach him could have originally been given to either Classmate r45 or Classmate g10, allowing the folder to reach Polley along either of the chains emanating from these two people.

Question #3: What percentage of folders reached the target?

2 out of 8 folders (25%)

This low number could be explained because of the strict organizational structure of the university and thus the relative unreachability of the target. In other words, it is likely that Communication majors were largely distanced from a lab technician at the Wistar Institute in terms of age, affiliation, field of study, and (for most people) gender.

In addition, the apathy of students translated into a failure to pass on the folder. Indeed, much anecdotal evidence indicates that alters complained that passing on the folder was “too much work.” In addition, many participants, feeling that they had no idea how to get a folder to someone in an institute as obscure as the Wistar Institute, neglected to continue the chain.

Our number, 25%, is similar to the 28% (44 out of 160) chains that traveled from the starting point in Nebraska to the target in Milgram’s study (p.65).

Homophily

Question #4: Is there “gender” homophily among chain links?

Whereas females passed folders on to alters of the same sex approximately as often as they passed folders on to males (53% versus 47%), the males in the study demonstrated slightly more gender homophily in their choice of people to whom to pass the folder (62.5% versus 37.5%). However, the sample size appears to be too small to make any sweeping statements. Nevertheless, these findings do differ from the finding by Stevenson et al. that “women relied more on homophilous ties to pass folders compared to men.”

In our study, the percentage of transfers to the same gender was 56.52% (55.56% for completed chains and 57.14% for incomplete chains). McPherson argues that “[u]ntil men and women enter the sex segregated voluntary association structure and labor force, most sex homophily is created by inbreeding rather than baseline homophily” (p.422). The results here do demonstrate a roughly equal split between homophilous and heterophilious transfers, demonstrating only a slight impact of this inbreeding homophily.

Question #5: Is there “affiliation” homophily among the chain links?

The folders appeared to be passed largely among students. In fact, folders were only passed to non-students 5 times, and of those 5 times, (a) 2 times occurred when the folder was given to the target person, (b) 2 times, the folder was passed back to a student, and (c) 1 time, the faculty member failed to pass on the folder. Perhaps such decisions were based on familiarity, trust, or convenience.

The abundance of student-to-student passings is indicative of what McPherson termed “status homophily” (p.419), in which people base their similarity on informal, formal, or ascribed status. Indeed, the high number of student-to-student transfers is consistent with McPherson’s comment that “[p]eople who are more structurally similar to one another are more likely to have issue-related interpersonal communication” (p.428). Thus, they are more likely to have had the requisite “several conversations … outside the classroom” (Assignment #2, Part #1) necessary to allow for the formation of a link in the chain.

These results run counter to Korte’s finding that “[t]he target typically occupied a lower status than that of the person who forged the final link” (p.105). Both individuals who forged the final link were students, whereas the target person was staff.

Question #6: Is there “years at Penn” homophily among the chain links?

9 folders were passed on to people who had been at the University of Pennsylvania for the same number of years (same class).
8 folders were passed on to people who had been at the University of Pennsylvania for more years (upper classes).
6 folders were passed on to people who had been at the University of Pennsylvania for fewer years (lower classes).

It appears that people passed folders on to “upper classes” and “lower classes” equally as often (especially considering that 2 of the 8 folders passed on “upper classes” went to Polley). There is a slightly higher incidence of people passing folders on to people in the “same class.” Such results differ from those found by Stevenson et al., who found that no one passed folders on to lower classmen.

Question #7: Is there “school” homophily among the chain links?

Of the 23 links, 16 (70%) were passed on to people in the same school. Such a finding suggests that members of the University of Pennsylvania community may have more interactions with people in the same school as themselves. If this stark division truly exists, it may account for the difficulty students found in reaching an individual who is removed by many degrees (graduate school, affiliate institute) from undergraduate Communication majors.

Such a gap can be liked, in a way, to the gaps that Korte found along racial lines. In our study, it appears that the folder had trouble crossing school lines, whereas in Korte’s study, the folder needed to cross racial lines. In both studies, the cross between groups occured very close to the target person (in terms of the number of links).

Question #8: Is there “department” homophily among the chain links?

In contrast to the high incidence of school homophily, there appears to be a remarkably low incidence of department homophily. Only 5 ties were between people of the same department (2 Biochemistry, 1 Communication and Political Science, 2 Wistar), and 2 of those ties were from one person to Polley. Thus, one can determine that departmentally homophilous ties were effective in completing the chains. Nevertheless, they were not too common along the path of the chain for either completed or incomplete chains

Time

Question #9: How much time does it take between “passings”? Does this differ for completed chains versus incomplete chains?

This data is incredibly flawed, and identifying the flaws may be more telling that analyzing the numbers. For example, the fact that there was both missing data (N/A) and negative numbers demonstrates that our method of determining the number of days between the time a person received a folder and the time he or she passed it on is inherently flawed. In addition, I know that my 2nd alter collected and mailed the cards for himself, Alter #3, and Alter #4. Such beneficence further skews the data. Finally, it is easy to conceive of someone passing on the folder on a different day from the day that he or she mailed the postcard (and the post office stamped it). Thus, the time advance or the time lag further renders this data inconclusive.

It is interesting to note that the chains which were completed had an average “days between ‘passings’” of 2 and 7. Of the other chains, 1 had fewer days than “2 days,” 1 had more days that “7 days,” and the other 4 had between “2 days” and “7 days.” Thus, it appears that completed chains were basically representative of all chains, allowing nothing to really be determined about the difference between “days between ‘passings’” for completed and incomplete chains.

Path of Folder

Question #10: Is there a funnel shape to the folders’ path (meaning that they all converge on a couple of individuals)?

Our data cannot comment on this topic, since only 2 chains were completed, and each of them had a different “2nd to last alter.” Nevertheless, it is interesting to note that the “Susan Yoon” group had 8 completed chains which came through 7 different “2nd to last alters.” Thus, in our two studies, there appears to be no demonstration of the strong funneling effect of which Stevenson et al. and Milgram (p.66) spoke.

Challenging My Own Initial Assumptions

Question #11: Was Dave the best person to originally pick?

As Killworth said, “[I]naccuracy in selection of small world chain intermediaries is predominant” (p.95). After passing my folder to Dave in belief that his work in a laboratory in the School of Medicine would put him (and therefore my folder) en route to Polley, I learned that my two friends Adam and Laura had much better connections to the Wister Institute. Adam mentioned knowing people in the Wister Institute, whereas a simple Facebook search revealed that Laura actually works in the Wistar Institute. I thus demonstrated inadequate choice in both “path accuracy” (Killworth, p.92) and “next person accuracy” (Killworth, p.93). Dave’s stories about having trouble finding someone who would accept the folder – since many potential 3rd Alters felt that they did constitute adequate “next choice accuracy” (Killworth, p.93) – demonstrates an inadequate ability to macroscopically assess the optimal route.

Question #12: Did the folder pass through the chain I had originally anticipated?

I had originally predicted that the folder would go from Dave to his boss at the Medical School to an official at Wistar to Polley. However, I soon learned how unfamiliar I am with the structure of laboratories at the University of Pennsylvania. Dave’s boss did not know anyone who he felt would bring the folder closer to Polley. The other people in Dave’s lab did not feel like they knew anyone either. Not only did Dave thus have trouble finding someone who would accept the folder, but after the three links which Dave oversaw, the folder actually never left his lab.

General Reflections

Question #13: What are some possible causes for the relative success or failure of folder delivery to the two targets based on the aggregate results?

1. Obscurity of Target. Based on the success of the Yoon folder and the failure of the Polley folder, one might conclude that a lab technician is more obscure than a professor in the Education School. Indeed, Stevenson et al. mentioned that “[s]mall world studies in the organizational setting have shown that barriers between professional groups exist and these barriers make it difficult for SW folders (and other communication) to cross these barriers.” Whereas Yoon is an educator, Polley is a lab technician (staff). As students, we are more able to reach an educator, even if she is in a different school, than a lab technician; such a result may be because of our familiarity with the structure of the educational system at the University of Pennsylvania.

2. Macroscopic Insight of Yoon Team. Perhaps the Yoon team picked “better” people to whom to pass their folder. “Better” could be defined by (a) more dedicated, (b) more strategically positioned, or (c) closer ties, (since 63% of completed Yoon folders were “Strong” or “Very Strong” ties).

Question #14: What are some possible reasons for my folder not being delivered?

1. The alters did not care about my project. [This is a true fact, as Dave (Alter #2) said that he had to mail Alter #3’s and Alter #4’s postcards.]

2. People felt that they could not reach Polley, as demonstrated by the fact that Dave had to ask a number of people to participate in the project before he could find someone who agreed to accept the folder.

3. I picked the wrong 2nd Alter (since, as mentioned above, I should have picked Laura or Adam).

Class Results and Stevenson et al. Study

Question #15: What are some of the similarities between class results and the Stevenson et al. study?

1. University Setting

2. Degrees of Separation. Both the Stevenson et al study and our study found fewer than Milgram’s 6 degrees of separation for completed chains. (See Question #16, Part 4, below).

3. Response Rate. Stevenson et al. had a response rate (measured by completed chains) of 27%. Our (Polley) study had a response rate of 25%.

Question #16: What are some of the differences between the class results and the Stevenson et al. study?

1. Class Homophily. Stevenson et al. found that undergraduates were (a) most likely to pass folders on to people of the same class and (b) not at all likely to pass folders on to people in a lower class. Our study of the Polley folder found (a) only a slight favoritism for passing the folder on to people in the same class and (b) the occurrence of people passing the folder on to people in lower classes.

2. Gender Homophily. Stevenson et al. found that women tended to pass the folder on to other women whereas men did not favor homophilous ties as much. Our study found no strong evidence of a preference for homophilous ties.

3. Funneling Effect. Stevenson et al. found that the “folders converge[d] on a small number of sociometric ‘stars’ before reaching the target person.” Our study found no such funneling effect in either the Polley or the Yoon group.

4. Number of Links. Stevenson et al. found that completed chains had an average of 1.25 links. The Polley and Yoon groups found that completed chains had an average of 4.5 and 3.25 links, respectively. Nevertheless, it is important to note that all three of these numbers are smaller than Milgram’s 6 degrees of separation.

5. Postcards. Stevenson et al. discusses how their decision not to attach postcards for intermediaries to send in caused them to have “received much less information on the links between individuals in the chains of communication.” Our study’s methodology included postcards and thus gave us more of the “richer set of data” which Stevenson et al. wanted.

6. Originating Alters. Stevenson et al. gave the folders to people in all grade levels. Our study used our class’s members as originating alters, therefore limiting the scope of the study.