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 21 will not reflect variation in influence among the networked individuals regardless of their network position. Taking a closer look at the data helps to explain the findings of this study. Centrality 1 and the raw indegree scores, scores that are not normalized by network size, are normally distributed: raw indegree scores ranged 0 to 12 (M = 5.3, SD = 2.48) and Centrality 1 ranged from 0 to 45 (M = 16.1, SD = 5.43). In contrast, the Centrality 2 scores, which ranged from 0 to .60 (M = .05, SD = .10), are clustered around zero and resemble a Poisson distribution. Further, the overall network density scores across the thirteen academic departments used in this study were quite sparse, with density scores that ranged between .07 and .27 (M = .16, SD = .07). A completely dense network would receive a score of 1. The relatively sparse networks used in this study suggest that the average indegree scores within the influence network do not mediate the centrality-influence link. Table 5 contains descriptive information for the networks included in this study. --- Table 5 --- The relationship between Centrality 1 and Centrality 2 is further illustrated by figures 1 through 3, which contain scatter plots of the raw indegree scores, Centrality 1 and Centrality 2 by indegree motivation to comply. With the exception of one network (department #12), the relationship between the raw indegree scores and indegree motivation to comply is consistent. The correlation between Centrality 1 and indegree motivation to comply slightly improves when this department is removed (r = .824, p < .05, N = 111). A similar pattern is seen with the Centrality 2 scores, where department #12 was the only network that did not display a positive linear relation with indegree motivation to comply. Removing this department from the

Authors: Wolski, Stacy.
first   previous   Page 21 of 39   next   last



background image
Influence Networks 21
will not reflect variation in influence among the networked individuals regardless of their
network position.
Taking a closer look at the data helps to explain the findings of this study. Centrality
1
and the raw indegree scores, scores that are not normalized by network size, are normally
distributed: raw indegree scores ranged 0 to 12 (M = 5.3, SD = 2.48) and Centrality
1
ranged from
0 to 45 (M = 16.1, SD = 5.43). In contrast, the Centrality
2
scores, which ranged from 0 to .60
(M = .05, SD = .10), are clustered around zero and resemble a Poisson distribution. Further, the
overall network density scores across the thirteen academic departments used in this study were
quite sparse, with density scores that ranged between .07 and .27 (M = .16, SD = .07). A
completely dense network would receive a score of 1. The relatively sparse networks used in
this study suggest that the average indegree scores within the influence network do not mediate
the centrality-influence link. Table 5 contains descriptive information for the networks included
in this study.
--- Table 5 ---
The relationship between Centrality
1
and Centrality
2
is further illustrated by figures 1
through 3, which contain scatter plots of the raw indegree scores, Centrality
1
and Centrality
2
by
indegree motivation to comply. With the exception of one network (department #12), the
relationship between the raw indegree scores and indegree motivation to comply is consistent.
The correlation between Centrality
1
and indegree motivation to comply slightly improves when
this department is removed (r = .824, p < .05, N = 111). A similar pattern is seen with the
Centrality
2
scores, where department #12 was the only network that did not display a positive
linear relation with indegree motivation to comply. Removing this department from the


Convention
Need a solution for abstract management? All Academic can help! Contact us today to find out how our system can help your annual meeting.
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 21 of 39   next   last

©2012 All Academic, Inc.