Social Network Blog - y35

Stanley Milgram's "Small World Problem" clearly breaks down the reality that everyone is connected through social ties. His analysis sheds light on what was once thought of as mysterious and random phenomenon. Milgram points out that there are differences between cultures in their dependence on family ties within their networks, an aspect of social networks that is much over-looked. People from other cultures depend more on their extended family when they need to turn to a social network while Americans depend more on friends and acquaintances. This shows that even though there is consistency in social networks in terms of how many degrees away people are from their target, there can be many factors that affect other aspects of an individual's social network such as nationality, sex, race, or age.

Milgram discusses some of those differences in “Acquaintances Networks Between Racial Groups.” While the article focuses on the boundaries between racial groups and how that affects the movement of a message within a social network, he acknowledges that there are differences, which suggests that there may also be differences in homogenous networks because of race. The study found that there were fewer successful Negro chains, and that when messages passed through racial barriers successfully, it was usually due to a male gatekeeper with professional status. This could mean that, at the time of the study, Black participants were less connected to mixed-race social networks. The common thread that the successful chains were aided by men who are managers, lawyers, and doctors, much more than their lower and working class peers suggests that maybe education and social status play a part in how well someone is connected. In fact, it suggests that those two factors help both Blacks and whites overcome racial obstacles that prevent people with less access from reaching different networks.

The Killworth et. al. article, and “The New Science of Networks” both offer more technical, mathematical, and logic-based explanations of the concept of social connections. Much more dry and specific, both pieces offer scientific perspective. “The Accuracy of Small World Chains in Social Networks” concludes that many connections are weak, and often attempted connections fail. This exposes what he calls mistakes in the network, which offers an explanation why many chains started by Blacks in Milgram’s experiment were unsuccessful.

Gladwell’s analysis of Lois Weisberg represents one of the major examples he uses in “The Tipping Point” where he explains fads and trends. Lois is like a real estate broker for friends, someone who knows everyone. His explanation shows what enormous capital it is to have access to many social networks in the way that she does. In fact, Gladwell points out how social networks can potentially limit and/or dictate the opportunities available to an individual. It would be interesting to get a better sense about what it is about an individual that makes them like Lois because Gladwell’s answer doesn’t effectively explain how she is so connected.

Communications 481 Week 4 Blog
Y35
“The Strength of Weak Ties” identifies a major weakness in sociological theory that there is not enough discussion about the relationship between micro-level analysis and macro-level patterns. Granovetter believes analyzing interpersonal networks exposes many important micro-macro relationships. Strong ties and weak ties are important to distinguish because different ties lead to different outcomes in a given network. The author defines strength in terms of time, emotional intensity, mutual confiding/intimacy, and reciprocal services. This definition is helpful because it is often difficult to settle on a comprehensive set of important characteristics that make a tie strong or weak. Granovetter suggests that in a triangle network of strong ties, each individual tie has a large impact on the other ties in the triangle. He uses the example of time spent to show that being in any type of close network with strong ties represents a large commitment. He also uses the terms “psychological strain” and “congruent feelings” to pinpoint two important factors that influence the development and maintenance of networks. I found the discussion of the difference between bridges and paths and the assertion that no strong tie is a bridge to be somewhat confusing. Weak ties are also important according to the author. They are most effective in spreading information in some ways because there is less damage done when a tie is broken and because the information will be passed quickly, locally, and without overlap. Granovetter’s most important illustration of the importance of weak ties lies in his example of leaders and weak ties. He suggests that leavers will be less responsive and trustworthy towards people with whom they are not connected. This seems accurate and can apply to many other situations and networks.

Like Granovetter, Ronald S. Burt sets out to define different ties in networks and social capital, and how they operate in a real world setting. Both articles support the idea that the social capital of an individual has a significant impact on everyone in the group. He uses this idea to drive the main theme of competition throughout the article that friends and connections are important assets to acquire. While I do agree with the major points, one assertion seemed like a small stretch. He suggests that people develop relations with others like themselves, and it stands alone as an explanation for why social capital is unevenly distributed. Part of the explanation should include an idea from the Granovetter article that people are influenced by their local ties and maybe educated people tend to network with other educated people based more on proximity. Another similarity between the articles is the assertion that sparse networks (weak connections) provide more information benefits. I thought that the lengthy discussion of holes was confusing and by the end I could no longer grasp the idea of what a hole is. Burt also talks about the “essential tension” like the strain that the other article touches on. I thought that all of the similarities between the articles were very interesting.

Social Isolation In America focuses more on the deterioration of networks, specifically the reduction of the number of people individuals will discuss important matters with. The researchers believe that this is an indicator or social isolation. The researchers spend much time isolating and eliminating various factors including the decline in civic organization and demographics. They suggest that much of the change can be blamed on the breaking of ties that used to connect individuals to community and neighborhood. This concept is something that has come up in discussion a number of times in class and seems to be an easy and visible explanation for the change.

Small University Experiment Part I
Comm 481: Social Networks
Ashley Gray

1) At first, it seems like personal characteristics of the first person that receives the folder should not matter very much. After all, Penn seems to be pretty diverse and there are many connections between males and females, students and instructors, and so on. Yet upon looking back on the possible individuals that I could have chosen to pass the folder to, most of those individuals are also females. While this could show a bias on my part, Stanley Milgram in “Small World Problem” also notes “a very pronounces tendency in our Kansas Study for females to send the folder to females, and males to send it on to males.” (65) If participants were three times as likely to give their folder to a member of the same sex than a member of the opposite sex, gender and other factors do have a large influence a participant’s choice.

University affiliation does play some role in the choice of the first individual in the experiment as well. While a student may not consider any faculty members acquaintances, it is still important to choose an individual that has access to the network of the target recipient. Choosing an individual who is highly involved in many aspects of the Penn community such as organizations or clubs, athletics, or research should also increase the likelihood of the folder reaching an unfamiliar target. I chose a teammate of mine who I think is well-connected and interacts with a number of people from different areas of the Penn community.

2) The relationship with the first person is the most important factor in the success of this experiment. If you chose an individual with whom you share a close tie, they are more likely to care about the success of the experiment because they care about you and you are closely linked. While most sociologists assert that close ties are not the easiest way to reach a large network because you share the close tie with that individual and, in turn, many of their other ties, it makes most sense to reach out to someone responsible and trustworthy in this situation. Also, people with whom we form close ties usually share many of the same values as you do so that may also add to the success of the folder reaching the target.

3) The personal characteristics of my target may make my chain longer than someone who shares more similarities with the target. I do not know anyone in the School of Education so her structural position makes her on the outside of my network. The folder undoubtedly will have to cross more barriers because of the distance.

4) I believe the folder will pass from my teammate, Maria, to any one of her other friends that she knows through Engineering, or another athlete from the University. I am sure that one of her friends will either know a student in the School of Education, or will know another graduate student. My guess is that the path will be exclusively female, and will consist of more students than faculty or staff. Malcolm Gladwell in “Six Degrees of Lois Weisberg” suggests that an individual who belongs to a variety of worlds like Lois’ eight will have access to a wider and more diverse network. I think that each individual will belong to many small networks because of the first individual that I passed my folder to.

5) I think that the folder will pass through up to four individuals. There could be an infinite number of intermediaries but because of the time constraints of students, but I am guessing that the first person on the roster will choose someone who they think is a very direct link to the target in order to decrease the possibility of the folder getting lost.