All Academic, Inc. Research Logo

Info/CitationFAQResearchAll Academic Inc.
Document

A Multilevel Study of Interpersonal Influence in Academic ‘Influence Networks’
Unformatted Document Text:  Influence Networks 11 calculations of centrality were used to test the hypotheses. The first, Centrality 1 , was calculated with the indegree scores for communication ties within the influence network and standardized by network size. In other words, Centrality 1 was calculated by dividing indegree communication ties by the total possible communication ties scores within a network, resulting in a score of ‘normalized degree centrality’ (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999). The second, Centrality 2 , is a centrality measure used within the structural theory of social influence (1998). The average indegree score of all network members, rather than network size, is the basis for calculating Centrality 2 , which also includes indegree scores for each individual. The relationship between an individual’s centrality score and Centrality 2 is that "an increase in the density of interpersonal ties (mean indegree) lowers self-weight” (Friedkin, 1998, p. 96). This calculation was proposed because it adjusts individual centrality so that the influencing force of structurally central individuals is dampened in networks that contain many central individuals, and the influencing force of structurally central individuals is enhanced in networks where this position is rare. This test accommodates a contingent relationship between centrality and influence, one that stipulates that the relationship is impacted by network properties. Adding centrality at the second level enables a cross-level test between the level two variables and the variables at level 1. Combining the first level equation with the second level produces a random effect multilevel model (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Hedeker et al., 1996; Snijders & Bosker, 2000) i : Level 1 Behavioral Intent ij = ß 0 i + ß 1 i Attitude ij + ß 2 i Subjective Norm ij + r ij Level 2 ß 0i = ß 00 + u 0ij

Authors: Wolski, Stacy.
first   previous   Page 11 of 39   next   last



background image
Influence Networks 11
calculations of centrality were used to test the hypotheses. The first, Centrality
1
, was calculated
with the indegree scores for communication ties within the influence network and standardized
by network size. In other words, Centrality
1
was calculated by dividing indegree communication
ties by the total possible communication ties scores within a network, resulting in a score of
‘normalized degree centrality’ (Borgatti, Everett, & Freeman, 1999).
The second, Centrality
2
, is a centrality measure used within the structural theory of social
influence (1998). The average indegree score of all network members, rather than network size,
is the basis for calculating Centrality
2
, which also includes indegree scores for each individual.
The relationship between an individual’s centrality score and Centrality
2
is that "an increase in
the density of interpersonal ties (mean indegree) lowers self-weight” (Friedkin, 1998, p. 96).
This calculation was proposed because it adjusts individual centrality so that the influencing
force of structurally central individuals is dampened in networks that contain many central
individuals, and the influencing force of structurally central individuals is enhanced in networks
where this position is rare. This test accommodates a contingent relationship between centrality
and influence, one that stipulates that the relationship is impacted by network properties. Adding
centrality at the second level enables a cross-level test between the level two variables and the
variables at level 1. Combining the first level equation with the second level produces a random
effect multilevel model (Bryk & Raudenbush, 1992; Hedeker et al., 1996; Snijders & Bosker,
2000)
i
:
Level 1
Behavioral Intent
ij
= ß
0 i
+ ß
1 i
Attitude
ij
+ ß
2 i
Subjective Norm
ij
+ r
ij
Level 2
ß
0i
= ß
00
+ u
0ij


Convention
Convention is an application service for managing large or small academic conferences, annual meetings, and other types of events!
Submission - Custom fields, multiple submission types, tracks, audio visual, multiple upload formats, automatic conversion to pdf.
Review - Peer Review, Bulk reviewer assignment, bulk emails, ranking, z-score statistics, and multiple worksheets!
Reports - Many standard and custom reports generated while you wait. Print programs with participant indexes, event grids, and more!
Scheduling - Flexible and convenient grid scheduling within rooms and buildings. Conflict checking and advanced filtering.
Communication - Bulk email tools to help your administrators send reminders and responses. Use form letters, a message center, and much more!
Management - Search tools, duplicate people management, editing tools, submission transfers, many tools to manage a variety of conference management headaches!
Click here for more information.

first   previous   Page 11 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.