Theoretical part SELF-TEST
Egocentric networks: Consequences-Period Trends
A. What is meant by raw homophily rates, structural/baseline homophily and taste/inbreeding homophily?
B. What is mean by network size, network composition, network structure, network stability?
C. Please formulate a hypothesis with respect to period trends in the size of core discussion networks. Motivate your answer by explaining how you applied the GTF.
D. Please formulate a hypothesis with respect to period trends in the homophily rates within friendship networks. Motivate your answer by explaining how you applied the GTF.
E. Please formulate a hypothesis with respect to period trends in the stability of acquaintance networks. Motivate your answer by explaining how you applied the GTF.
F. Do a ‘quick’ literature search and see if there is already empirical evidence for C, D and E. Please cite the literature used. Motivate your answer.
Egocentric networks: Consequences-Lifecourse trends
A. Please consider the standard measurement instrument for the CDN. Are, according to you, the mentioned ‘confidants’ strong ties? Motivate your answer.
B. In Small et al. (2015), the authors made a typology of the possible dynamics in a CDN. Do these reflect all possibilities?
C. Could you give an example of an online egocentric network? Please define the alter, ego and type of tie.
D. Would you expect different dynamics – i.e. lifecourse trends – in your online egocentric network of 2C as compared to the CDN that Small et al. (2015) studied? Motivate your answer.
Egocentric networks: Consequences
A. Briefly summarize the theories (or mechanisms) mentioned in Brechwald et al. (2011) explaining peer influence.
B. Which mechanisms of A are tested in Rokven et al. (2017)?
C. According to Brechwald et al. (2011: 168) it is important to ‘understanding peer influence in a clique context – and when possible, attempting to compare effects of groups and dyads’. Do you think Rokven et al. (2017) followed up on this advice? Please motivate your answer.
D. Rokven et al. (2017) pay considerable attention to what Brechwald et al. (2011) calls ‘peer influence moderators’. At which ‘level’ (see Brechwald) do Rokven’s moderators belong? Please motivate your answer.
E. I think that Brechwald missed some moderator-levels. Most importantly I think a fifth level should have been moderators at the network-level. Thus characteristics of the network that may moderate peer influence. Please formulate a research question (not a hypothesis) on how network-characteristics moderate the influence of friends’ involvement in crime on the risk of offending and victimization. Please motivate your answer why this would be an interesting research question.