a model of robust positions in social structure matt bothner edward bishop smith harrison c. white...

29
A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Upload: brook-wheeler

Post on 20-Jan-2016

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure

Matt BothnerEdward Bishop Smith

Harrison C. White

University of ChicagoColumbia University

Page 2: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Spring & Summer 1937

Page 3: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Spring & Summer 1937

Page 4: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Bowling Finishing Rank

Sta

tus

in N

ort

on

s S

tre

et

Ga

ng

2 4 6 8 10

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Danny

Doc

Long John

Mike

Joe Carl

Frank

Alec

Page 5: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Bowling Finishing Rank

Sta

tus

in N

ort

on

s S

tre

et

Ga

ng

2 4 6 8 10

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

Danny

Doc

Long John

Mike

Joe Carl

Frank

Alec

Page 6: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Alec’s Attack on Long John

“He seems to have the Indian sign on me.” -- Long John

“It is significant that, in making his challenge, Alec selectedLong John instead of Doc, Danny, or Mike. It was not that LongJohn's bowling ability was uncertain. His average was about thesame as that of Doc or Danny and better than that of Mike. As amember of the top group but not a leader in his own right, it washis social position that was vulnerable.” – Whyte

Page 7: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 8: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Spring & Summer 1937

Page 9: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Early Spring 1937

Page 10: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 11: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 12: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 13: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

α,β α+βi j ijj

S S X

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 14: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

α,β α+βi j ijj

S S X k 1

k=0

α,β α β k

S X 1

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Methodological Contribution: Using Nutsy’s Descent (Early Spring 1937)

Page 15: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Nortons’ Status Scores: Early Spring 1937

Alec .67

Angelo 1.06

Carl .75

Danny 1.23

Doc 1.79

Frank .90

Fred .82

Joe .75

Long John .90

Lou .71

Mike 1.23

Nutsy .90

Tommy .67

status

Page 16: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Early Spring 1937

Page 17: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[2] Angelo .5 0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .9 .5 .3 .8 .5 .5 .5

[3] Carl .5 .5 0 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 .9

[4] Danny .5 .5 .5 0 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 1 .5 .5

[5] Doc 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

[6] Frank .8 .5 .5 .3 .5 0 .5 .9 .3 .5 .3 .5 .5

[7] Fred .5 .5 .5 .1 .5 .5 0 .5 .3 .9 .1 .5 .5

[8] Joe .9 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 0 .3 .5 .1 .5 .5

[9] Long John .3 .3 .3 .9 .9 .3 .3 .3 0 .3 .9 .3 .3

[10] Lou .5 .5 .5 .1 .3 .5 .5 .5 .3 0 .1 .5 .5

[11] Mike .5 .5 .5 1 1 .5 .5 .5 1 .5 0 .5 .5

[12] Nutsy .6 .2 .4 .6 .6 .7 .4 .8 .1 .4 .6 0 .4

[13] Tommy .5 .5 .5 .1 .1 .5 .5 .5 .3 .5 .1 .5 0

Measuring Fragility (and Robustness)

simple two-step transformation: normalize each entry by its row sum andsquare the proportions

Page 18: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Measuring Fragility (and Robustness)

simple two-step transformation: normalize each entry by its row sum andsquare the proportions

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[2] Angelo 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[3] Carl 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03

[4] Danny 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

[5] Doc 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[6] Frank 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[7] Fred 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01

[8] Joe 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[9] LongJohn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

[10] Lou 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

[11] Mike 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[12] Nutsy 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

[13] Tommy 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Page 19: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

, +i j ijj

F a b a bF Z

Measuring Fragility (and Robustness)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[2] Angelo 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[3] Carl 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03

[4] Danny 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

[5] Doc 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[6] Frank 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[7] Fred 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01

[8] Joe 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[9] LongJohn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

[10] Lou 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

[11] Mike 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[12] Nutsy 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

[13] Tommy 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Page 20: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

, +i j ijj

F a b a bF Z k 1

k=0

, ka b a b

F Z 1

Measuring Fragility (and Robustness)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[2] Angelo 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[3] Carl 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03

[4] Danny 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

[5] Doc 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[6] Frank 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[7] Fred 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01

[8] Joe 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[9] LongJohn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

[10] Lou 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

[11] Mike 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[12] Nutsy 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

[13] Tommy 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

Page 21: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

, +i j ijj

F a b a bF Z k 1

k=0

, ka b a b

F Z 1

Measuring Fragility (and Robustness)

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]

[1] Alec 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[2] Angelo 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[3] Carl 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.03

[4] Danny 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00

[5] Doc 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

[6] Frank 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[7] Fred 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.01

[8] Joe 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01

[9] LongJohn 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00

[10] Lou 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01

[11] Mike 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

[12] Nutsy 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

[13] Tommy 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00

b c c is a parameter capturing thecoupling of nodes in the network

Page 22: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Nortons’ Fragility Scores: Autumn 1937

Alec .67 1.03

Angelo 1.06 .91

Carl .75 1.06

Danny 1.23 .94

Doc 1.79 .85

Frank .90 .97

Fred .82 1.02

Joe .75 1.06

Long John .90 1.17

Lou .71 .99

Mike 1.23 .94

Nutsy .90 .99

Tommy .67 1.03

status fragility

Page 23: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

The Nortons: Autumn 1937

Page 24: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Predicting Status Growth in Newcomb’s Fraternity

, 1 1 , 1i t it it i t i tS S F

Page 25: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Models Predicting Status, t+1 in Newcomb’s Fraternity

1 2 3 4

Status 0.56545 0.53436 0.32897 0.32897

(0.03475)** (0.04444)** (0.08848)** (0.08848)**

Fragility (decoupling assumed; c=0) -0.05100 0.17340

(0.04548) (0.12635)

Fragility (coupling assumed; c=.99) -0.17216 -0.09097

(0.09056)** (0.03283)**

Constraint 5.62474

(1.78250)**

Sychophant -0.00696

(0.00217)**

Constant 0.48865 0.57128 0.44281 -0.58196

(0.04246)** (0.08503)** (0.08576)** (0.43804)

N 238 238 238 238

R2 Within 0.5688 0.5714 0.5788 0.6032

Standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1% (one tailed)

Fixed effects for individuals and time periods included but not shown

Page 26: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Models Predicting Status, t+1 in Newcomb’s Fraternity

1 2 3 4

Status 0.56545 0.53436 0.32897 0.32897

(0.03475)** (0.04444)** (0.08848)** (0.08848)**

Fragility (decoupling assumed; c=0) -0.05100 0.17340

(0.04548) (0.12635)

Fragility (coupling assumed; c=.99) -0.17216 -0.09097

(0.09056)** (0.03283)**

Constraint 5.62474

(1.78250)**

Sychophant -0.00696

(0.00217)**

Constant 0.48865 0.57128 0.44281 -0.58196

(0.04246)** (0.08503)** (0.08576)** (0.43804)

N 238 238 238 238

R2 Within 0.5688 0.5714 0.5788 0.6032

Standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1% (one tailed)

Fixed effects for individuals and time periods included but not shown

Page 27: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Models Predicting Status, t+1 in Newcomb’s Fraternity

1 2 3 4

Status 0.56545 0.53436 0.32897 0.32897

(0.03475)** (0.04444)** (0.08848)** (0.08848)**

Fragility (decoupling assumed; c=0) -0.05100 0.17340

(0.04548) (0.12635)

Fragility (coupling assumed; c=.99) -0.17216 -0.09097

(0.09056)** (0.03283)**

Constraint 5.62474

(1.78250)**

Sychophant -0.00696

(0.00217)**

Constant 0.48865 0.57128 0.44281 -0.58196

(0.04246)** (0.08503)** (0.08576)** (0.43804)

N 238 238 238 238

R2 Within 0.5688 0.5714 0.5788 0.6032

Standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1% (one tailed)

Fixed effects for individuals and time periods included but not shown

Page 28: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Models Predicting Status, t+1 in Newcomb’s Fraternity

1 2 3 4

Status 0.56545 0.53436 0.32897 0.32897

(0.03475)** (0.04444)** (0.08848)** (0.08848)**

Fragility (decoupling assumed; c=0) -0.05100 0.17340

(0.04548) (0.12635)

Fragility (coupling assumed; c=.99) -0.17216 -0.09097

(0.09056)** (0.03283)**

Constraint 5.62474

(1.78250)**

Sychophant -0.00696

(0.00217)**

Constant 0.48865 0.57128 0.44281 -0.58196

(0.04246)** (0.08503)** (0.08576)** (0.43804)

N 238 238 238 238

R2 Within 0.5688 0.5714 0.5788 0.6032

Standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1% (one tailed)

Fixed effects for individuals and time periods included but not shown

Page 29: A Model of Robust Positions in Social Structure Matt Bothner Edward Bishop Smith Harrison C. White University of Chicago Columbia University

Models Predicting Status, t+1 in Newcomb’s Fraternity

1 2 3 4

Status 0.56545 0.53436 0.32897 0.32897

(0.03475)** (0.04444)** (0.08848)** (0.08848)**

Fragility (decoupling assumed; c=0) -0.05100 0.17340

(0.04548) (0.12635)

Fragility (coupling assumed; c=.99) -0.17216 -0.09097

(0.09056)** (0.03283)**

Constraint 5.62474

(1.78250)**

Sychophant -0.00696

(0.00217)**

Constant 0.48865 0.57128 0.44281 -0.58196

(0.04246)** (0.08503)** (0.08576)** (0.43804)

N 238 238 238 238

R2 Within 0.5688 0.5714 0.5788 0.6032

Standard errors in parentheses

* significant at 5%; ** significant at 1% (one tailed)

Fixed effects for individuals and time periods included but not shown