2019
DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3425975
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

In Social Network Analysis, Which Centrality Index Should I Use? Theoretical Differences and Empirical Similarities among Top Centralities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It measures the number of direct connections that a node has to other nodes and assumes that more central nodes have more direct connections to other nodes. In the words of Freeman (1978/1979: 219), central nodes are ‘in the thick of things’ (see also Iacobucci et al, 2017: 76). We use eigenvector values as our measure of degree centrality.…”
Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…It measures the number of direct connections that a node has to other nodes and assumes that more central nodes have more direct connections to other nodes. In the words of Freeman (1978/1979: 219), central nodes are ‘in the thick of things’ (see also Iacobucci et al, 2017: 76). We use eigenvector values as our measure of degree centrality.…”
Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Closeness centrality is the second type of centrality and it measures the shortest path between the different network nodes, with the assumption that the more central nodes are those with shorter distances to other nodes. Central nodes are those that can directly reach other nodes and/or reach them via short geodesics (Iacobucci et al, 2017: 77). We use the Lin measure, which is calculated as ‘the inverse of the average distance (where) the smaller the value, the more central is the node’ (Borgatti and Everett, 2006).…”
Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The in-degree centrality does not correlate with the motivating capability (Pearson’s ρ between the in-degrees and the motivating capability of the nodes is 0.38 at Company A; −0.09 at Company B; and 0.21 at Company C), so the two dimensions provide additional information about actors. However, high and low social capital correlate with the in-degree centrality which reflects the eigenvector centrality captures the importance of the actors 57 . Eigenvector centralities of actors on the L2 layer are also well correlated with in-degrees (Pearson’s ρ between the in-degree and the eigenvector centrality of the nodes is 0.71 at Company A; 0.68 at Company B; and 0.67 at Company C).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We used three centrality indices (strength, betweenness, and closeness) to identify the most central symptoms 32 , 33 . Strength is a measure of network connectivity.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%