Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Statistics, Politics and Policy

Editor-in-Chief: Wagschal, Uwe

2 Issues per year

Online
ISSN
2151-7509
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Measurement Error and Attenuation Bias in Exponential Random Graph Models

Yeaji Kim / Leonardo Antenangeli / Justin Kirkland
  • Corresponding author
  • University of Houston – Political Science, 3551 Cullen Boulevard Room 447, Houston, TX 77204, USA
  • Email
  • Other articles by this author:
  • De Gruyter OnlineGoogle Scholar
Published Online: 2017-05-11 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0001

Abstract

Exponential Random Graph Models (ERGMs) are becoming increasingly popular tools for estimating the properties of social networks across the social sciences. While the asymptotic properties of ERGMs are well understood, much less is known about how ERGMs perform in the face of violations of the assumptions that drive those asymptotic properties. Given that empirical social networks rarely meet the strenuous assumptions of the ERGM perfectly, practical researchers are often in the position of knowing their coefficients are imperfect, but not knowing precisely how wrong those coefficients may be. In this research, we examine one violation of the asymptotic assumptions of ERGMs – perfectly measured social networks. Using several Monte Carlo simulations, we demonstrate that even randomly distributed measurement errors in networks under study can cause considerable attenuation in coefficients from ERGMs, and do real harm to subsequent hypothesis tests.

This article offers supplementary material which is provided at the end of the article.

References

  • Alemán, Eduardo and Ernesto Calvo (2013) “Explaining Policy Ties in Presidential Congresses: A Network Analysis of Bill Initiation Data,” Political Studies, 61(2):356–377.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Aronow, Peter M. Cyrus Samii, and Valentina A. Assenova (2015) “Cluster–Robust Variance Estimation for Dyadic Data,” Political Analysis, 23(4):564–577.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Baybeck, Brady, William D. Berry, and David A. Siegel (2011) “A Strategic Theory of Policy Diffusion via Intergovernmental Competition,” The Journal of Politics, 73(01):232–247.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Berry, William D. and Brady Baybeck (2005) “Using Geographic Information Systems to Study Interstate Competition,” American Political Science Review, 99(04):505–519.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Boehmke, Frederick J. and Paul Skinner (2012) “State Policy Innovativeness Revisited,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 20(10):1–27.Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. and Dino P. Christenson (2014) “The Evolution and Formation of Amicus Curiae Networks,” Social Networks, 36:82–96.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., Dino P. Christenson and Matthew P. Hitt (2013) “Quality over Quantity: Amici Influence and Judicial Decision Making,” American Political Science Review, 107(03):446–460.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cao, Xun (2012) “Global Networks and Domestic Policy Convergence: A Network Explanation of Policy Changes,” World Politics, 64(03):375–425.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Carroll, Raymond J., Kathryn Roeder and Larry Wasserman (1999) “Flexible Parametric Measurement Error Models.” Biometrics, 55(1):44–54.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Cranmer, Skyler J. and Bruce A. Desmarais (2011) “Inferential Network Analysis with Exponential Random Graph Models,” Political Analysis, 19(1):66–86.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Cranmer, Skyler J., Bruce A. Desmarais and Elizabeth J. Menninga (2012) “Complex Dependencies in the Alliance Network,” Conflict Management and Peace Science, 29(3):279–313.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Desmarais, Bruce A. and Skyler J. Cranmer (2013) “Forecasting the Locational Dynamics of Transnational Terrorism: A Network Analytic Approach,” Security Informatics, 2(1):1–12.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Desmarais, Bruce A., Jeffrey J. Harden and Frederick J. Boehmke (2015) “Persistent Policy Pathways: Inferring Diffusion Networks in the American States,” American Political Science Review, 109(2):392–406.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Dowdle, Andrew J. and Song Yang (2014) Why and Where the Money Flows: An ERGM Analysis of Shared Donors Among Presidential Candidates. Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association.Google Scholar

  • Erikson, Robert S., Pablo M. Pinto and Kelly T. Rader (2014) “Dyadic Analysis in International Relations: A Cautionary Tale.” Political Analysis, 22(4):457–463.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Fowler, James H., Michael T. Heaney, David W. Nickerson, John F. Padgett and Betsy Sinclair (2011) “Causality in Political Networks.” American Politics Research, 39(2):437–480.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Gomez-Rodriguez, Manuel, Jure Leskovec and Andreas Krause (2010) Inferring Networks of Diffusion and Influence. In KDD ’10: Proceedings of the 16th ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery in Data Mining.Google Scholar

  • Goodreau, Steven M., James A. Kitts and Martina Morris (2009) “Birds of a Feather, Or Friend of a Friend?: Using Exponential Random Graph Models to Investigate Adolescent Social Networks,” Demography, 46(1):103–125.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Grossback, Lawrence J., Sean Nicholson-Crotty and David A. M. Peterson (2004) “Ideology and Learning in Policy Diffusion,” American Politics Research, 32(5):521–545.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Guolo, Annamaria (2007) “Robust Techniques for Measurement Error Correction: A Review,” Statistical Methods in Medical Research, 17(6):555–580.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Handcock, Mark S., David R. Hunter, Carter T. Butts, Steven M. Goodreau and Martina Morris (2008) “Statnet: Software Tools for the Representation, Visualization, Analysis and Simulation of Network Data,” Journal of Statistical Software, 24(1):1548.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Heaney, Michael T. (2014) “Multiplex Networks and Interest Group Influence Reputation: An Exponential Random Graph Model,” Social Networks, 36:66–81.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Hoff, Peter D., Adrian E. Raftery and Mark S. Handcock (2002) “Latent space approaches to social network analysis,” Journal of the american Statistical association, 97(460): 1090–1098.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kinne, Brandon J. (2014) “Dependent Diplomacy: Signaling, Strategy, and Prestige in the Diplomatic Network,” International Studies Quarterly, 58(2):247–259.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kirkland, Justin H. (2014) “Ideological Heterogeneity and Legislative Polarization in the United States,” Political Research Quarterly, 67(4). p. 1065912914532837.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kirkland, Justin H. R. and Lucas Williams (2014) “Partisanship and Reciprocity in Cross-Chamber Legislative Interactions,” The Journal of Politics, 76(03):754–769.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Koskinen, Johan and Galina Daragonova (2013) “Exponential Random Graph Model Fundamentals,” In: (Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen, and Garry Robins, eds.) Exponential Random Graph Models For Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 6.Google Scholar

  • Krackhardt, David (1988) “Predicting with Networks: Nonparametric Multiple Regression Analysis of Dyadic Data,” Social networks, 10(4):359–381.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lazer, David, Brian Rubineau, Carol Chetkovich, Nancy Katz and Michael Neblo (2010) “The Coevolution of Networks and Political Attitudes,” Political Communication, 27:248–274.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Leider, Jonathon P., Brian C. Castrucci, Jenine K. Harris and Shelley Hearne (2015) “The Relationship of Policymaking and Networking Characteristics among Leaders of Large Urban Health Departments,” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 12:9169–9180.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Masket, Seth E. (2015) Do Voters and Insiders Nominate the Same Sort of Candidates? A Look at Legislative Vacancy Appointments in Illinois and Colorado. Presented at the UCLA Department of Political Science.Google Scholar

  • Masket, Seth and Boris Shor (2015) “Polarization without Parties: Term Limits and Legislative Partisanship in Nebraska’s Unicameral Legislature,” State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 15(1):67–90.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • McClurg, Scott D. and Joseph K. Young (2011) “Political Networks,” PS: Political Science & Politics, 44(01):39–43.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Mooney, Christopher Z. (2001) “Modeling Regional Effects on State Policy Diffusion,” Political Research Quarterly, 54(1):103–124.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Newman, Mark E. J. and Juyong Park (2003) “Why Social Networks are Different from other Types of Networks,” Physical Review E, 68(3):036122.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Oatley, Thomas, William Winecoff, Andrew Pennock and Sarah Bauerle Danzman (2013) “The Political Economy of Global Finance: A Network Model.” Perspectives on Politics, 11(01):133–153.Google Scholar

  • Ohtsuki, Hisashi, Christoph Hauert, Erez Lieberman and Martin A. Nowak (2006) “A Simple Rule for the Evolution of Cooperation on Graphs and Social Networks,” Nature, 441(7092):502–505.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Poast, Paul (2010) “(Mis) Using Dyadic Data to Analyze Multilateral Events,” Political Analysis, 18(4):403–425.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • R Development Core Team (2013) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Version 3.01. http://www.r-project.org.

  • Ringe, Nils, Jennifer Nicoll Victor and Christopher J. Carman (2013) Bridging the Information Gap: Legislative member organizations as social networks in the United States and the European Union. University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar

  • Robins, Garry and Dean Lusher (2013) “Simplified Account of an Exponential Random Graph Model as a Statistical Model,” In: (Dean Lusher, Johan Koskinen and Garry Robins, eds.) Exponential Random Graph Models For Social Networks: Theory, Methods, and Applications, Cambridge University Press. Chapter 4.Google Scholar

  • Robins, Garry, Pip Pattison, Yuval Kalish and Dean Lusher (2007) “An Introduction to Exponential Random Graph (p*) Models for Social Networks,” Social Networks, 29(2):173–191.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Song, Hyunjin (2015) “Uncovering the Structural Underpinnings of Political Discussion Networks: Evidence from an Exponential Random Graph Model,” Journal of Communication, 65:146–169.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Stefanski, L. A. (2000) “Measurement Error Models,” Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95(452):1353–358.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Wooldridge, Jeffrey M. (2009) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach, 4e. Stamford(CT): South-Western Cengage Learning.Google Scholar

About the article

Published Online: 2017-05-11

Published in Print: 2016-12-20


Citation Information: Statistics, Politics and Policy, Volume 7, Issue 1-2, Pages 29–54, ISSN (Online) 2151-7509, ISSN (Print) 2194-6299, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/spp-2016-0001.

Export Citation

©2016 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston.Get Permission

Supplementary Article Materials

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in