1. 1 Kuo-hsien Su, National Taiwan University Nan Lin, Academia Sinica and Duke University Measurement of Social Capital: Recall Errors and Bias Estimations

2. 2 Change in number of positions accessed from wave I to wave II (N=2,707 respondents) No change : 12% Decrease : 52.9% Increase : 35%

3. 3 Differences between the sets of accessed positions during two interviews may reflect… Genuine changes in network Measurement Error Observed change of accessed positions

4. 4 Motivations  Measurement instability poses a serious challenge to the study of network changes.  Need a clear measurement or better understanding of the possible sources of error.  The two periods panel survey provided an opportunity (1) to model factors associated with changes in accessed position (2) to detect whether the respondent forgot a subsequently/previously named contact.

5. 5 Prior research  Forgetting is a pervasive phenomenon in the elicitation of network contacts.  Research on forgetfulness has been disproportionately based on name generator instrument.  Little research on the reliability of position generator.

6. 6 Tasks Identify the sources of potential bias Analyze the factors associated with forgetting Examine effects of forgetting on network resource indices

7. 7 Data  Social Capital Project: the Taiwan Survey, conducted in late 2004 and 2006  Consists of 1,695 men and 1,585 women aged 20- 65.

8. 8 Problem of Non-response Wave I 2004 N = 3,280 Wave I 2004 N = 3,280 Wave II 2006 N = 2,710 Wave II 2006 N = 2,710 Re-interview = 82.6% Non-response = 17.4%

9. 9 Table 1. Characteristics of the follow-up and non-response sub- sample Full sampleFollow-up Non-response sample (N=3280)(N=2710)(N=570) Mean% % % Gender Male51.7% 51.5% 52.5% Female48.3% 48.5% 47.5% Age41.341.739.5 Years of schooling11.7 11.8 Marital Status Single23.9% 22.8% 29.1% Married/cohab70.2% 71.4% 64.4% Widow/divorced6.0% 5.8% 6.5% Network resource indices Extensity8.5 8.2 Upper reachability62.462.860.4 Range of prestige36.7 37.0 35.1

10. 10 Three types of research designs (Brewer, 2000). A Comparisons between recall and recognition data B Comparison between recall data and objective records of interaction C Comparison between two recall data elicited in two separate interviews within a short period of time

11. 11 Limitations of our data  Our survey was not designed to examine forgetting specifically.  No recognition data or objective records to compare with.  Two years interval is too long: Test-retest design is usually within a very short time interval.

12. 12 Revised method C: Comparison of accessed positions elicited in two separate interviews Wave II 2006 Wave I 2004 How many years have you known this person ？ 2005 Forgetting = (Contact mentioned in wave II but not mentioned in wave I) AND (duration >= 3 years) Assumption: durations reported in wave II are more or less accurate. Whether the respondent forgot a subsequently named contact ？

13. 13 Coding scheme for tie changes Wave II (2006) NOYES Wave I (2004) NO (1) Consistent “NO”(2)New contacts (less than 3 years) (3)Forgetting at wave I (more than 3 years) YES (4)Lost contact /Forgetting at wave II (5) Consistent “YES”

14. The distribution of length of relationship of forgotten ties (N=4,332 dyads, 7.3%) The average duration of ties forgotten is 13 years

15. 15 How much does the respondent forget ？ Wave IWave II know more than 3 years? CategoriesNPercent YES Consistent "YES" 14,33049.9% NOYESNONew contact1,2404.3% YES Forgotten at wave I 4,33215.1% YESNO Contact lost/ Forgotten at wave II 8,79430.7% Total28,696100% approximately 15% of forgetting Unique = 51.1%

16. 16 Distribution of respondents by number of ties forgotten (N=2707 respondents) 35.6% of the respondents did not forget any ties 64.4 %of the respondents failed to mention at least one contact, with an average of 1.6 forgotten ties per respondent. These numbers suggest that forgetting a contact was not a rare occurrence.

17. 17 Analytical Strategies  What factors are associated with forgetting ？  Unit of analysis: person-contacts dyads  Model : Multilevel logit  Whether “forgetting” affects estimates of network resources ？  Unit of analysis: person Model predicting “forgetting” Analysis for the effect of forgetting on estimates of accessibility

18. 18 Sample  A multi-level logit approach  The models estimate the odds of “forgetting” versus “not forgetting”; the reference population consisted of all contacts mentioned in the first interview (2004).

19. Data structure Respondent A nurselawyerdoctorprofessorCEO Respondent B janitorTaxi driver Security guard Positions nested within individuals LEVEL 2LEVEL 1 The final sample consists of 2,682 respondents and 28,343 person- contact dyads. The multi-level approach requires us to transform the individual-based data to person-contacts observations.

20. 20 Variables  Level 2 (respondent level):  Age  Years of schooling  Marital status (married)  Employment status (employee)  Occupational prestige score  Size of daily contact

21. 21 Variables  Level 1 (ties level):  Type of relationships Group into six categories: kin, neighbor, school tie, work- related ties, friends, indirect tie  Length of relations (in years)  Closeness  Gender homophily  Status difference Status distance = absolute difference between respondent’s prestige score and contact’s prestige scores Status disparity = respondent’s prestige score – contact’s prestige score

22. Descriptive statistics (individual level) Level-2TotalMaleFemale (N=2676)(N= 1383)(N=1293) Age(in years)41.6241.4641.79 (11.66)(11.62)(11.70) Years of education11.7712.3011.19 (4.23)(3.75)(4.63) Marital status single0.230.250.21 divorced/widowed0.060.030.09 married0.710.720.71 Employment status employee0.720.680.76 self-employed/employer0.180.230.12 part-timer0.03 family worker0.080.050.10 Occupation prestige score 39.8841.2638.39 (12.91)(13.13)(12.50) Size of daily contacts3.423.523.31 (1.36)(1.31)(1.41)

23. Descriptive statistics (dyad level) Level-1TotalForgettingNot forgetting (N=27,103)(N=4,315 )(N=22,788) Type of relationship kin0.210.240.21 neighbor0.070.090.07 school tie0.07 0.08 work-related ties0.350.420.33 friends0.240.120.26 indirect tie0.050.070.05 Same sex0.610.600.61 Length of relationship12.8912.9512.88 (11.92)(11.98)(11.91) Closeness3.463.343.49 (0.99) Status Distance15.7916.7415.61 (11.66)(12.21)(11.54) Status Disparity-3.56-5.89-3.12 (19.30)(19.87)(19.16)

24. 24 MODEL (1) Level-2 Model Intercept-1.197*** Female (male)-.146*** Age (in years).000 Years of schooling-.054*** Marital status (married) Single.105+ Divorced/widowed-.168+ Employment status (employee) Self-employed/employer-.080 Part-timer-.076 Family worker-.048 Occupation prestige scores-.007*** Size of daily contacts-.125*** Multi-level model predicting “forgetting” (level-2 model)

25. 25 Multi-level model predicting “forgetting” (Level-1 model) MODEL (1)MODEL (2) Level-1 Model Type of relationship (work-related ties) Kin.100 * * Neighbor.015.011 School ties-.196 *** -.197 *** Friends-.807 *** -.804 *** Indrect ties.096.104 + Same sex-.039 + -.106 *** (same-sex)×female.122 ** Length of relationship-.008 *** -.007 *** Closeness-.173 *** -.174 *** Status Distance.007 ***.011 *** (status distance)×female-.007 ***

26. 26 Multi-level model predicting “forgetting” (Level-1 model) MODEL (3)MODEL (4) Level-1 Model Type of relationship (work-related ties) Kin.108 *.107 * Neighbor.022.020 School ties-.197 *** -.200 *** Friends-.814 *** -.812 *** Indrect ties.098 +.104 + Same sex-.040 + -.106 *** (same-sex)×female.119 * Length of relationship-.008 *** -.008 *** Closeness-.179 *** -.181 *** Status disparity-.002 ** -.004 *** (status disparity)×female.004 **

27. 27 Findings  Recall error may not be random.  Forgetting is more likely among weak ties.  How does recall error affect the estimation of network-driven indices ？

28. 28 Table 4. Discrepancy between “true” (corrected) and “observed” (raw) network resources indices Corrected score Raw score Differencest-test Extensity Mean 9.98.51.3839.2 SD 5.5 Range Mean 40.636.73.9225.8 SD 16.818.6 Upper reachability Mean 65.262.42.8319.3 SD 15.217.6 Because forgetting is more likely among weak ties, position- generator underestimate embedded network resources.

29. 29 Table 5. Correlations between “true” (corrected) and observed (raw) network resources indices at wave I (N=3,272) Corrected indices Raw indices at wave I ExtensityRangeReachabilityExtensityRange Corrected indices Extensity -- Range.817 Reachability.692.886 Raw indices at wave I Extensity.934.745.632 Range.792.884.776.832 Reachability.674.804.880.694.865

30. 30 Conclusions  Forgetting a contact was not a rare occurrence;  Recall error is largely nonrandom.  Status difference appears to govern the recall process.  Position generator systematically underestimates network-driven resource indices.