Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness: A hierarchical conception of social groups.∗

While questions about social cohesion lie at the core of our discipline, definitions are often vague and difficult to operationalize. We link research on social cohesion and social embeddedness by developing a conception of structural cohesion based on network nodeconnectivity. Structural cohesion is defined as the minimum number of actors who, if removed from a group, would disconnect the group. A structural dimension of embeddedness can then be defined through the hierarchical nesting of these cohesive structures. We demonstrate the empirical applicability of our conception of nestedness in two dramatically different substantive settings and discuss additional theoretical implications with reference to a wide array of substantive fields. “...social solidarity is a wholly moral phenomenon which by itself is not amenable to exact observation and especially not to measurement.” (Durkheim, (1893 [1984], p.24) “The social structure [of the dyad] rests immediately on the one and on the other of the two, and the secession of either would destroy the whole. ... As soon, however, as there is a sociation of three, a group continues to exist even in case one of the members drops out.” (Simmel (1908 [1950], p. 123) Introduction Questions surrounding social solidarity are foundational for sociologists and have engaged researchers continuously since Durkheim. Researchers across a wide spectrum of substantive fields employ cohesion or solidarity as a key element of their work. Social disorganization theorists, for example, tout the importance of “community cohesion” for preventing crime (Sampson and Groves 1989). Political sociologists focus on how a cohesive civil society promotes democracy (Paxton 1999; Putnam 2000). Historical sociologists point to the importance of solidarity for revolutionary action (Bearman 1993; Gould 1991), and that the success of heterodox social movements depends on a cohesive critical mass of true believers (Oliver, Marwell, and Teixeira 1985). Social epidemiologists argue that a cohesive “core” is responsible for the persistence of sexually transmitted diseases (Rothenberg, Potterat, and Woodhouse 1996). Worker solidarity is a key concept in the sociology of work (Hodson 2001). Social psychologists have repeatedly returned to issues surrounding cohesion and solidarity, attempting to understand both its nature (Bollen and Hoyle 1990; Gross and Martin 1952; Roark and Shara 1989; Roark and Shara 1989) and consequences (Carron 1982; Hansell 1984). Unfortunately, as with “structure” (Sewell 1992), the rhetorical power of “cohesion” is both a blessing and a curse. Sociologists are all too familiar with the problem: we study “cohesion” in almost all our substantive domains, and in its ambiguity, it seems to serve as a useful theoretical placeholder. Ubiquity, however, does not equal theoretical consistency. Instead, the exact meaning of cohesion is often left vague, or when specified, done so in a particularistic manStructural Cohesion and Embeddedness 2 ner that makes it difficult to connect insights from one subfield to another. The purpose of this paper is to identify a generalizable structural dimension of social solidarity. While the conception we develop is related in certain ways to some, perhaps many, of the meanings of “solidarity” or “cohesion” used in the literature, it is by no means intended to cover them all. Instead, we focus only on one dimension. By carefully identifying one aspect of social solidarity, we hope to help flesh out one of the multiple meanings contained in this ubiquitous idea. The social network based conception we develop is theoretically grounded in insights from Simmel (1950) and Durkheim (1984) and methodologically grounded in classical graph theory (Harary et al, 1965; Harary, 1969). White and Harary (2001) demonstrate the formal logic by which graph theoretic measures lend themselves to the study of the structural dimension of social cohesion. Here, we extend a definition of structural cohesion in its most general form, applicable to large-scale analyses in a variety of settings, and provide an algorithm for use in empirical analyses. The implementation of our algorithm for measuring embedded levels provides an operational specification of a dimension of social embeddedness (Granovetter 1985). This allows us to specify and explore empirically the unique contribution of this dimension of social embeddedness. Here we focus on two empirical settings: friendships among high-school students (Bearman et. al, 1996) and the political activity of big businesses (Mizruchi, 1997). For adolescent friendships, we show that network position predicts school attachment; linking relational cohesion to ideational solidarity in a dozen large networks. For the smaller director interlock network, we show that joint network embeddedness contributes to political contribution similarity within dyads; linking network position to coordinated political action. In both cases, we find unique effects of our conception of cohesion net of commonly used alternative measures, substantiating its unique contribution. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 3 Background and Theory Scope Analytically, solidarity can be partitioned into an ideational component, referring to members' identification with a collectivity and a relational component (Dorian and Fararo, 1998), referring to the observed connections among members of the collectivity. Research on commitment (Kanter 1968) or perceived cohesion (Bollen and Hoyle 1990) focus directly on the ideational component of social solidarity. While often based on an underlying relational theory, much of the national and community level work on social cohesion uses ideational indicators of “community cohesion” (Paxton 1999; Sampson and Groves 1989). Separating these two dimensions allows one to explore the relation between them. This theoretical distinction, for example, allowed Durkheim to link changes in the common consciousness to the transition from mechanical to organic societies. Some of the ambiguity surrounding applications of ‘cohesion’ and research on cohesive groups involves differences in scale. While the theoretical importance of social cohesion is often cast at national levels (Durkheim 1984; Putnam 2000), most treatments of the relational dimensions of cohesion have focused on small-groups. Relational cohesion, however, is no less important at larger scales, though the relational connectivities that might define cohesion cannot be equally dense. An advantage of our conception of structural cohesion is that it applies to groups1 of any size. In so doing, we add a new dimension to recent literature on large-scale social networks (Barabási and Albert 1999; Newman 2001; Watts 1999) and bridge insights about smallgroup structure to those at much larger scales. Identifying cohesive structures is only one part of analyzing social solidarity, and a more informative approach simultaneously tells us how such groups relate to each other. Our concep1 Due to the long history of small, face-to-face research on "groups", we would prefer to avoid the use of this term altogether, in favor of broader terms such as "collectivity" or "sub-structure" that carry much less theoretical baggage. Such a substitution, however, results in decidedly awkward writing. We thus maintain the use of "group", but remind readers that our conception is not limited to the small face-to-face primary group structures commonly referred to by the term. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 4 tion of structural cohesion necessarily entails a positional analysis of the resulting groups with respect to their nesting in the population at large. Theoretically, the resulting concept of nestedness captures one dimension of Granovetter's (1985) concept of social embeddedness. Like "solidarity", "embeddedness" is a multidimensional construct relating generally to the importance of social networks for actors. Embeddedness indicates that actors who are integrated in multiplex social networks face different sets of resources and constraints than those who are not embedded in such networks. By specifying an exact structural indicator for social embeddedness, we help move beyond vague orienting statements and augment our ability to develop cumulative scientific insights. In what follows, we identify an important feature of the relational dimension of social solidarity that is applicable to groups of any size. Following Simmel, that feature is the extent to which a group depends on particular individuals to retain its character as a group. The relevant quantitative measure is the minimum number of individuals whose continued presence is required to retain the group’s connectedness (see White and Harary, 2001 for graph theoretical aspects). For clarity and theoretical consistency, we refer to this relational aspect of social solidarity as structural cohesion. Structural cohesion simultaneously defines a group property characterizing the collectivity, a positional property that situates sub-groups relative to each other in a population, and individual membership properties. While we do not claim to capture the full range of either "solidarity" or "embeddedness," structural cohesion provides an exact analytic operationalization of a dimension of each. Defining Structural Cohesion Research on social cohesion has been plagued with contradictory, vague and difficult to operationalize definitions (for reviews, see Doreian and Fararo 1998; Mizruchi 1992; Mudrack 1989), sharing only an intuitive core resting on how well a group is "held together". What does it mean, for example, that cohesion is defined as a "field of forces that act on members to remain in the group" (Festinger et al. 1950) or "the resistance of a group to disruptive forces" (Gross and Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 5 Martin 1952)? Dictionary definitions of cohesion rest on similar ambiguities, such as “[t]he action or condition of cohering; cleaving or sticking together” (OED, 2000). While we might all agree that cohesive groups should display “connectedness” (O'Reilly and Roberts 1977), what aspects of connectedness should be taken into account? For concepts of cohesion to be analytically useful, we must differentiate between the relational togetherness of a group from the sense of togetherness that people express. Using only subjective factors, such as a "sense of we-ness" (Owen 1985) or "attraction-to-group" (Libo 1953) fails to capture the collective nature of a cohesive group (Mudrack 1989). Conversely, many treatments that focus exclusively on groups, such as the group's ability to 'attract and retain members", commingle relational and ideational components of social solidarity. Conflating relational and ideational features of social solidarity in a single measure limits our ability to ask questions about how relational cohesion affects (or is affected by) ideational factors. The ability to directly operationalize structural cohesion through social relations is one of the primary strengths of a relational conception of social cohesion. The "forces" and "bonds" that hold the group together are the observed relations among members, and cohesion is an emergent property of the relational pattern.2 Based on this prior literature, a preliminary intuitive definition of structural cohesion might read: Def. 1.1. A collectivity is structurally cohesive to the extent that the social relations of its members hold it together. While we will sharpen the terms of Def. 1.1 below, there are five important features of this preliminary definition. First, it focuses on what appears constant in previous definitions of cohesion: a property describing how a collection of actors is united. Second, it is expressed as a group-level property. Individuals may be embedded more or less strongly within a cohesive group, but the 2 This conception assumes that the dyadic relation is a positive connection. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 6 group has a unique level of cohesion. Third, this conception is continuous. Some groups will be weakly cohesive (not held together well) while others will be strongly cohesive. Fourth, structural cohesion rests on observable social relations among actors. Finally, the definition makes no reference to group size. What, then, are the relational features that hold collectivities together? Clearly, a collection of individuals with no relations among themselves is not cohesive. If we imagine relations forming among a collection of isolated individuals we might observe a moment where each person in the group is connected to at least one other person in such a way that we could trace a single path from each to the other. Thus, a weak form of structural cohesion starts to emerge as these islands become connected through new relations.3 This intuition is captured well by Markovsky and Lawler (1994) when they identify "reachability" as an essential feature of relational cohesion. Additionally, as new relations form within this minimally cohesive group, we can trace multiple paths through the group. Intuitively, the ability of the group to "hold together" increases with the number of independent ways that group members are linked. That cohesion seems to increase as we add relations among pairs has prompted many researchers to focus on the volume (or density) of relations within and between groups (Alba 1973, Fershtman 1997; Frank 1995; Richards 1995). There are two problems with using relational volume to capture structural cohesion in a collective. First, consider again our group with one path connecting all members. We can imagine moving a single relation from one pair to another. In so doing, the ability to trace a path between actors may be lost, but the number of relations remains the same. Since volume does not change but reachability does, volume alone cannot account for structural cohesion. 3 See Hage and Harary (1996) for a discussion of this process among islands in Oceania. We recognize that social groups can form from the dissolution of past groups; the above discussion is useful only in understanding the character of structural cohesion. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 7 Second, the initial (and weakest) moment of structural cohesion occurs when we can trace only one path from each actor in the network to every other actor in the network. Imagine further that our ability to trace a chain from any one person to another always passes through a single person. This might occur, for example, if all relations revolved around a charismatic leader: each person might have ties to the leader, and be connected only through the leader to every other member of the group. While connected, such groups are notoriously fragile. As Weber (1978: 1114) pointed out, the loss of a charismatic leader will destroy a group whose structure is based on an all-to-one relational pattern. Thus, increasing relational volume but focusing it through a single individual does not necessarily increase the ability of the group to hold together, instead making the network vulnerable to targeted attack.4 Markovsky and Lawler (1994, Markovsky 1998) make a related point when they argue that a uniform distribution of ties is needed to prevent a network from splitting into multiple subgroups. "... the organization of [cohesive] group ties should be distributed throughout the group in a relatively uniform manner. This implies the absence of any substructures that might be vulnerable, such as via a small number of 'cut-points' to calving away from the rest of the structure." (Markovsky, 1998 p. 345). Such vulnerable substructures form when network relations are focused through a small number of actors. If pairs of actors are linked to each other through multiple others, the structure as a whole is less vulnerable to this type of split. Given the above, we amend our preliminary definition of structural cohesion to make explicit the importance of multiple independent paths linking actors together. Def. 1.2. A group is structurally cohesive to the extent that multiple independent relational paths among all pairs of members hold it together. 4 Recent research on large networks such as the WorldWide Web finds that an extremely small number of nodes are connected to an extremely large number of partners. These networks depend on high-volume actors to remain connected, and targeted interventions (virus attacks in computer networks, education and treatment effects in STD networks) will disconnect the network and disrupt flow (Barabási and Albert 1999; Pastor-Satorras and Vespignani 2001). Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 8 While still preliminary, this amendment provides a metric for structural cohesion that reflects Simmel's discussion of the supra-individual status of triads over dyads (Simmel 1950:135). In a dyad, the existence of the group rests entirely in the actions of each member, since either member acting unilaterally could destroy the dyad by leaving. Once we have an association of three, however, a connected group remains even if one of the members leaves. In triads, the social unit is not dependent on a single individual, and thus the social unit takes on new uniquely social characteristics. Groups of any size that depend on connections through a single actor are at one end of Def. 1.2 (weakly cohesive) while those that rest on connections through two actors are stronger, and those depending on connections through many actors are stronger yet. The strongest cohesive groups are those in which every person is directly connected to every other person (cliques), though this level of cohesion is rarely observed except in small primary groups.5 To specify our conception of structural cohesion, we need a language capable of accurately expressing relational patterns in a group. The language of graph theory provides this clarity. Structural cohesion depends on how pairs of actors can be linked through chains of relations, or paths. A path in the network is defined as an alternating sequence of distinct nodes and edges, beginning and ending with nodes, in which each edge is incident with its preceding and following nodes. We say that actor i can reach actor j if there is a path in the graph starting with i and ending with j. Two paths from i to j are node-independent if they have only nodes i and j in common. If there is a path linking every pair of actors in the network then the graph is connected. A component of a network is a maximal connected subgraph of the full network. Components are the minimum setting for a ‘cohesive’ structure. A cut-set of a graph is a collection of nodes that, if removed, would break the component into two or more pieces. A graph is k-connected (i.e., has “node-connectivity k”) and called a k-component if it has no cutset of fewer than k nodes. In common terminology a 2or biconnected component is called a bicomponent and a 3-connected 5 It is important that our conception of structural cohesion reaches a maximum with fully connected cliques, linking us to previous conceptions of network cohesion. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 9 component a tricomponent. In any k-component, there must be at least two non-adjacent nodes connected by paths all of which must pass through a cutset of k other nodes. What is not so obvious, constituting one of the deepest theorems about graphs, is that a k-connected graph (i.e., having a cut-set with exactly k members), also has at least k node-independent paths connecting every pair of nodes, and vice versa (see Harary 1969 for Menger's proof).6 Based on the intuitive notions captured in definition 1.2 and the formal graph properties presented above, we can now provide a final definition of structural cohesion. Def. 1.3a. A group's structural cohesion is equal to the minimum number of actors who, if removed from the group, would disconnect the group. A group is cohesive to the extent that it is robust to disruption, which is captured by nodeconnectivity. For each connectivity value (k) observed in a given network, there is a unique set of subgroups with this level of structural cohesion. Because of the formal equality between the size of the cut-set and the number of node-independent paths, the “disconnect” version of definition 1.3a can be restated without any loss of meaning in "held together" terms as: Def. 1.3b. A group's structural cohesion is equal to the minimum number of independent paths linking each pair of actors in the group. This pair of equivalent definitions of structural cohesion retains all five aspects of our original intuitive definition of structural cohesion. A collection of actors is united through relational paths that bind nodes together. Node connectivity is a group-level property (the network as a whole is k-connected), but individuals can be more or less strongly embedded within the group 6 White and Harary (2001) formalize the definition of structural cohesion, review the critiques of alternate measures of cohesive subgroups, and then go on to discuss the relation between connectivity and density. They also examine a second but weaker dimension upon which such groups could be arranged that relates to edge-connectivity (see also Borgatti et al, 1990,Wasserman and Faust, 1994), measured by the minimum number of edges that must be removed in a connected group that will result in its disconnection. It can be shown that a graph of any level of edge-connectivity may still be separable by removal of a single actor, which means that the unilateral power of actors can be high even when there are many relations connecting people. The present paper differs from White and Harary (2001) by generalizing the theoretical linkages to social solidarity, developing the linkage between nestedness and embeddedness, and providing an algorithm to facilitate empirical research using cohesive blocking. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 10 (as the network may admit to nested k+l-connected subgroups). The conception scales, ranging from 0 (not connected), to n-1 (a complete clique), and applies to networks of any size. Structural cohesion is weaker the more the connectivity of a graph depends on a small number of actors. Such graphs are vulnerable to the activity of fewer and fewer members. As node-connectivity increases, vulnerability to unilateral action decreases. Based on Simmel's discussion of the dyad, we argue that a connectivity of 2 (a bicomponent) is the minimum distinction between weak and stronger structurally cohesive groups, which are ranked by their kconnectedness. Figure 1 presents examples of networks with differing levels of structural cohesion. Note that in each of these three groups the number of relations is held constant, but the edges are arranged such that structural cohesion increases from left to right. (Figure 1 about here) Cohesive Blocking An algorithm for identifying structurally cohesive groups is described in the appendix. Identification involves a recursive process: One first identifies the k-connectivity of an input graph, then removes the k-cutset(s) that hold(s) the network together. One then repeats this procedure on the resulting subgraphs, until no further cutting can be done. As such, any k+l connected set embedded within the network will be identified. Moreover, each iteration of the procedure takes us deeper into the network, as weakly connected nodes are removed first, leaving stronger and stronger connected sets, uncovering the nested structure of cohesion in a network. The search procedure can result in two types of subgroups. On the one hand, we may identify groups that "calve away" from the rest of the population such as those discussed by Markovsky and Lawler (1994). In such cases, cohesive groups rest "side-by-side" in the social structure, one distinct from the other. This is the kind of description commonly used for primary social groups (Cooley 1912), which we expect at high levels of structural cohesion. Alternatively, structurally cohesive groups could be related as Russian dolls – with increasingly cohesive groups nested inside each other. The most common such example would be a group with a highly Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 11 cohesive core, surrounded by a somewhat less cohesive periphery, as has been described in widely ranging contexts (Borgatti 1999). A common structural pattern for large systems might be that of hierarchical nesting at low connectivity levels and non-overlapping groups at high connectivity. To gain an intuitive sense for the cohesive group detection procedure, consider the example given in figure 2. (Figure 2 about here) This network has a single component inclusive of all nodes. Embedded within this network are two biconnected components: nodes {1 –7, 17-23} and {7-16}, with node {7} involved in both. Within the first bicomponent, however, members {1-7} form a 5-component and members {17-23} form a 3-component. Similarly, nodes {7,8,11, and 14} form another 3-component (a four-person clique) within the second bicomponent, while the remainder of the group contains no sets more strongly connected than the bicomponent. Thus, the group structure of this network contains a 3-level hierarchy, presented in figure 3. (Figure 3 about here) Since connectivity sets can overlap, group members can belong to multiple groups. While observed overlaps at high levels of connectivity may be rare, any observed overlaps are likely substantively significant.7 If an individual belongs to more than one maximal k-cohesive group, that individual is part of a unique subset of k-1or fewer individuals whose removal will disconnect the two groups. Members of such bridging sets are structurally equivalent with re7 Some researchers consider overlapping subgroups too empirically vexing to provide useful analysis. It is important to point out that (1) k-components are strictly limited in the size of such overlaps, making the substantive number of such intermediate positions small -especially compared to cliques, (2) that each such position, because of its known relation to the potential flow paths and cycle structure of the network, can be theoretically articulated in ways that are impossible for clique overlaps, and (3) even when they are empirically difficult to handle, may well be an accurate description of relationship patterns. Arguments that relative density groups (c.f. Frank, 1995) solve this problem by assigning each actor to their preferred group (based on number of nominations) fail to account for people who have ties across many sub-groups, such that the total number of ties to people in other groups is higher than the number of ties to people in the group they have been assigned to. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 12 spect to the larger cohesive sets that they bridge. As such, a positional and relational structure comes out of the analysis of cohesive groups. These groups are much larger, fewer, and easier to distinguish than by our traditional notions of sociological cliques. This procedure provides some of the same theoretical purchase blockmodels were designed to provide (Burt 1990; Lorrain and White 1971; White et al. 1976), but focusing on subgraphs that may overlap rather than partitions of nodes.8 Because this method provides the ability to both identify cohesive groups and identify the position of each group in the overall structure, we call the method cohesive blocking. It is important to note the flexibility of this approach. The concept of cohesion presented here provides a way of ordering groups within hierarchically nested trees, with traditional segmented groups occupying separate branches of the cohesion structure (recall figure 3), but allowing overlap between groups in different branches (e.g., node 7 in the figure). The ability to accommodate both nested and segmented structures within a common frame is a strength of our model. Relation to Social Embeddedness A nested conception of cohesion provides a direct link between structural cohesion and social embeddedness (Granovetter 1985). The general concept of embeddedness has had a significant influence within current sociological research and theory.9 While used most often in economic sociology (Baum and Oliver 1992; Portes and Sensenbrenner 1993; Uzzi 1996; 1999) or stratification (Brinton 1988), embeddedness has been used to describe social support (Pescosolido 1992), processes in health and health policy (Healy 1999; Ruef 1999), family demography (Astone et al. 1999) and the analysis of criminal networks (Baker and Faulkner 1993; McCarthy et al. 1998). Most treatments of embeddedness refer to the constraining effects of an 8 Overlaps are crucial to cohesive structures. Ordinarily we think of social groups as designations for sets of individuals. Structural cohesion identifies groups in terms of sets of relationships, as represented by edges in the graph. As such, node-connectivity results in a partition of edges (not individuals) allowing people to be in multiple cohesive groups. It is for this reason that cohesive blocking cannot in general be subsumed as a form of blockmodeling: cohesive blocks may overlap, and do not form partitions. 9 At last count (May, 2002), the social citation index lists close to 1350 citations to Granovetter’s 1985 article on social embeddedness. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 13 actor's relative involvement depth in social relations. 10 If cohesive groups are nested within one another, then each successive k-connected set is more deeply embedded within the network. This deep connectivity nicely captures the intuitive sense of being involved in relations that are, in direct contrast to “arms-length” relations, embedded in a social network (Uzzi, 1996). As such, one aspect of embeddedness — the depth of involvement in a relational structure — is captured by this nesting. We define an actor’s nestedness in a social network as the deepest cut-set level within which the actor resides.11 Alternative approaches to structural cohesion Node-connectivity differs markedly from other approaches to identifying "cohesive groups" in social networks.12 Group identification methods based on number of interaction partners (k-cores), minimum within group distance (N-cliques), or relative in-group density, may be structurally cohesive, but are not necessarily so. In every case, the method used to identify groups cannot distinguish multi-connected groups from those vulnerable to the removal of a single actor. As such, any empirical application of these methods to a theoretical problem of structural cohesion risks ambiguous findings. By distinguishing structural cohesion from factors such as density or distance, we can isolate the relative importance of connectivity in social relations from these other factors. Distance between members, the number of common ties and so forth might affect outcomes of interest, but our ability to extend social theory in formal network terms depends on our ability to unambiguously attribute social mechanisms to network features. Con10 There is a problem here analogous to prior definitions of "cohesion" that combine relational and ideational dimensions of solidarity. We prefer a concept of embeddedness that lets us test whether a particular pattern of relations constrains decision making and actions, instead of defining embeddedness in terms of the resulting constraint. 11 Similarly, an actor’s nestedness in a cohesive group is defined as the deepest cut-set level within that group at which the actor resides. 12 White & Harary (2001) compare node-connectivity approaches to many others, using data on Zachary's Karate Club as an exemplar. A detailed comparison of each alternative method to measuring connectivity that expands on those White and Harary (2001), with multiple examples, is available from the authors upon request. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 14 nectivity provides researchers with the ability to disentangle the effects of structural cohesion from other network features. Using connectivity to capture a key dimension of social cohesion is not new, though most previous approaches have focused on edge-connectivity (Borgatti et al. 1990; Wasserman and Faust, 1994). White and Harary (2001) discuss the formal links between node and edge connectivity in detail. Briefly, a graph has edge-connectivity k if it has no cutset of k-1 nodes and, by Menger’s Theorem, there are k edge-independent (as opposed to node-independent) paths connecting every pair of nodes in the graph. While the two conceptions might seem intuitively similar, they can result in radically different assessments of group cohesion. Consider as an example the second graph in figure 1, which is 2-edge connected. By simply adding ties from the circular node in the center, one could increase edge-connectivity dramatically, but the graph as a whole would still depend entirely on this single node to remain connected. As we discuss in more detail below, this kind of dominating central node would increase power inequality in the network and likely highlight divisions within the network. These substantive weaknesses may explain why so few people have used the edgeconnectivity notion empirically, or found significant results with this method. Given the formal similarity between node and edge connectivity, why has node-connectivity not been used before now? While many reasons are possible, including the general focus on small primary groups, the technical ability to identify high-connectivity sets may be largely responsible. Harary first proposed node connectivity as a measure of cohesion in 1965 (Harary et. al, 1965: 25). The ability to identify bicomponents is implemented in the most popular network software (Borgatti et al. 1999) and a fast algorithm to identify tricomponents was developed by computer scientists in 1973 (Hopcroft and Tarjan 1973), though never implemented by social scientists. The ability to identify the full connectivity of a graph as well as all cut-sets is a recent phenomenon, however, and the algorithm presented in the appendix is the first to combine all the necessary elements for a full cohesive blocking. Thus, while the graph-theoretic ideas surrounding our approach to structural Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 15 cohesion were introduced in the literature 35 years ago, the ability to empirically employ these ideas has only now become available. Given the historical focus on small groups, is it reasonable to argue for 'cohesion' in aggregates of many thousands of nodes? One might argue, for example, that a single loop connecting 1000 people is not very cohesive. Why and when would such a graph be considered cohesive? The answer, as Markovsky and Lawler (1994) suggest, depends on the implicit comparison group. Clearly, the substantive social character of a 10-person group differs from that of a 1000person group. Comparison with a small primary group will always give the impression, if it has high density, that a large group with lower density is less cohesive. We argue, however, that this is the wrong comparison, conflating analytically distinct dimensions of social structure such as density or mean path distance and that of the number of independent connections. Holding the number of nodes and the size (hence density) of a network constant, the effect of greater nodeconnectivity is always to increase social cohesion. Structural cohesion unites networks, independent of other factors such as size, with "independence" having the same meaning implied by most statistical models. Thus, the correct comparison for a 1000-person bicomponent is to a 1000-person spanning tree (less cohesive) or 1000 actors divided into 250 four person groups (less cohesive yet). Other implicit comparisons, of course, are various baseline models of randomness. In a network of a million nodes and two million edges, bicomponents in the range of 1000 persons will not be unusual, while a clique of ten is an extremely rare event in a random network of 30 nodes and 50 edges. For a structurally cohesive group to be substantively significant within a network,13 whatever its number of nodes and given its number of edges, it must stand out against the background of a relevant baseline model of randomness. How does nestedness relate to other common network measures? To the extent that nestedness captures the general location of actors and differentiates prominent actors, an actor's nest13 We do not take up here the evaluation of statistical significance. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 16 edness can be thought of as a type of centrality (Harary et al, 1965; Freeman 1977; Wasserman and Faust 1994). However, depth in the network is a group-level property, which distinguishes it from centrality measures. Second, because connectivity is related to degree (each member of a kcomponent must have at least k ties), nestedness is necessarily correlated with degree, linking us with the most commonly used operationalizations of embeddedness. As we show in the empirical examples below, however, nestedness is not equivalent to any of these measures, either singly or in combination, and measures something very different. While there are multiple dimensions upon which to compare a node-connectivity conception of cohesion to alternatives, the real test of the idea is whether it adds anything substantive to our understanding of empirical cases or gives rise to new theoretical hypotheses about social structure. Below we first demonstrate the value-added of our hierarchical conception of relational cohesion in two radically different settings then discuss further theoretical implications of structural cohesion. Two Empirical Examples: High Schools and Interlocking Directorates To demonstrate the empirical relevance of cohesive blocking, we use data from two different types of networks. First, we use data on friendships among high school students taken from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Add Health) .14 This example illustrates how cohesive groups can be identified in large settings based on friendship, one of the most 14 Add Health was designed by J. Richard Udry (PI) and Peter Bearman, and funded by grant P01HD31921 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the Carolina Population Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, with cooperative funding participation by the National Cancer Institute; the National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; the National Institute on Drug Abuse; the National Institute of General Medical Sciences; the National Institute of Mental Health; the National Institute of Nursing Research; the Office of AIDS Research, NIH; the Office of Behavior and Social Science Research, NIH; the Office of the Director, NIH; the Office of Research on Women's Health, NIH; the Office of Population Affairs, DHHS; the National Center for Health Statistics, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS; the Office of Minority Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, DHHS; the Office of Minority Health, Office of Public Health and Science, DHHS; the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation, DHHS; and the National Science Foundation. Persons interested in obtaining data files from The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health should contact Jo Jones, Carolina Population Center, 123 West Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-3997 (email: [email protected]). Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 17 commonly studied network relations. The second example uses data on the interlocking directorate networks of 57 large firms in the United States (Mizruchi 1992). Since business solidarity has been an important topic of research on interlocks, we apply our method to this network and show how our conception of cohesion relates to political activity similarity. Of course, there is not space here to treat the subtle theoretical issues surrounding each of these substantive areas. Instead, the analyses below are designed to highlight how our concept of cohesion can add to empirical research in widely differing research settings. Structural Cohesion in Adolescent Friendship Networks Add Health is a school-based study of adolescents in grades 7-12. A stratified nationally representative sample of all public and private high schools (defined as schools with an 11 grade) in the United States with a minimum enrollment of 30 students was drawn from the Quality Education Database (QED) in April, 1994 (Bearman et al. 1996). Network data were collected by providing each student with a copy of the roster of all students for their school. Students identified up to five male and five female (10 total) friends from this roster.15 For this paper, we use data on over 4000 students taken from a dozen schools with between 200 and 500 students (mean = 349) providing a diverse collection of public (83%) and private schools from across the United States.16 Nestedness and School Attachment For each school, we employed the cohesive blocking procedure described in appendix 1 to identify all connectivity sets for each school friendship network. At the first level, we have the entire graph, which is usually unconnected (due to the presence of a small number of isolates). 15 For purposes of identifying connectivity sets, we treat the graph as undirected. The algorithms needed for identifying connectivity can be modified to handle asymmetric ties. It was for directed graphs that Harary et al. (1965) developed their concept of cohesion as connectivity, although they offered no computational algorithms. 16 This represents all schools in the dataset of this size. The selected size provides a nice balance between computational complexity and social complexity, as the schools are large enough to be socially differentiated and small enough for group identification to be carried out in a reasonable amount of time. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 18 Most of the students in every school are contained within the largest bicomponent, and often within the largest tricomponent. As the procedure continues, smaller and more tightly connected groups are identified. At high levels of connectivity (k>5), identified subgroups do not overlap. This implies settings with multiple cores, differentially embedded in the overall school networks. When no further cuts can be made within a group, we have reached the end of the nesting structure for that set of nodes. The level at which this cutting ceases describes the nestedness for each member of that group. An example of the nesting sequence for a school network of 401 nodes is given in figure 4. Here we see that most of the nodes are connected at level 3, but a small 4-component occupies a separate stream of the structure. The highest levels of connectivity in this particular school are made up of a 6-component and a 7-component found at levels 55 and 56 respectively. (Figure 4 about here) Nestedness within the community should be reflected in a student’s perception of his or her place in the school. The Add Health in-school survey asks students to report on how much they like their school, how close they feel to others in the school and how much they feel a part of the school.17 Here, we use the mean of the three items as a measure of school attachment. Building on Markovsky and Lawler's discussion of solidarity and cohesion, there ought to be a significant positive relation between nestedness in the network and school attachment, net of any other factor that might be associated with school attachment (Markovsky 1998; Markovsky and Chaffee 1995; Markovsky and Lawler 1994). We control for other variables that might affect a student's school attachment. Since gender differences in school performance and school climate are well known (Stockard and Mayberry 1992), we would expect female students to have lower school attachment than males. As students age we would expect the school to become a less salient focus of their activities, and 17 These are three items from the Perceived Cohesion Scale (Bollen and Hoyle 1990). The other three items used for Bollen and Hoyle’s scale were not included in the Add Health school survey. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 19 grade in school is also controlled.18 Students who perform well in school or who are involved in many extra-curricular activities should feel more comfortable in schools. Since students from small schools might feel more attached than students from large schools, we test a school level effect of size on mean school attachment. A significant feature of our approach is that we can differentiate the unique effects of network features that are often conflated with cohesion in standard network measures. First, the number of contacts a person has (degree centrality) reflects their level of involvement in the network. Substantively, we expect that those people with many friends in school are more likely to feel an integrated part of the school. Second, we might argue that having friends who are all friends with each other is an important feature of network involvement. As such, the density of one's personal (local) network is tested. Third, we might expect that those people who are most central in the network should have a greater sense of school attachment. Hence, betweenness centrality is tested. Finally, it may be the case that the lived community of interest for any student is that set of students with whom they interact most often. We used NEGOPY to identify density-based interaction groups within the school, and use the relative group density to measure this effect.19 If our conception of nestedness captures a unique dimension of network embeddedness, as our discussion above implies, then controlling for each of these features, we would expect to find an independent effect of nestedness on school attachment.20 Table 2 presents HLM coefficients for models of school attachment on the nestedness level, school activity, demographic, and other network factors. Model 1 presents a baseline 18 Since school friendships tend to form within grade, controlling for grade in schools captures an important focal feature of the in-school network. 19 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting this specification, which uses fewer degrees of freedom than an alternative test which uses a dummy variable for each identified sub-group in the school. Tables with the alternative specification are available upon request and show no substantive difference in the nestedness effect. 20 Thanks to an anonymous reviewer for suggesting a 2-level hierarchical linear model to test for these relations, with students nested in schools. The model was specified to allow coefficients to vary randomly across schools, with the school level intercept (substantively, mean school attachment) regressed on school size. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 20 model containing only attribute and school variables. As expected, females and students in higher grades tend to have lower school attachment, while students who are involved in many extracurricular activities or who get good grades feel more attached to the school. School size, while negative, is not statistically significant. In model 2, our measure of network nestedness is added to the model. 21 We see that there is a strong positive relation between nestedness and school attachment (note that the size of the standardized coefficient for nestedness is the largest in this model). Testing the difference in the deviance scores between model 1 and model 2 suggests that including nestedness improves the fit of the overall model. In models 3 6, we test the specification including our measure and each of the four alternative network measures. In each case, nestedness remains positive, significant and strong, while inclusion of the alternative measures adds little explanatory power (as seen by testing against model 2). In model 7, we include all potentially confounding network variables, and the relation between nestedness and attachment remains. The largest change in the coefficient for nestedness comes with the addition of degree, which is likely due to collinearity, as every member of a k-component must have degree > k. (Table 2 about here) These findings suggest that individuals are differentially attached to the school as a whole, and thus the school differentially united, through structural cohesion. This finding holds net of school-level differences in school attachment, the number of friends people have, the interaction densities among their immediate friends or of their larger density-based interaction group, and their betweenness centrality level. That these other factors do not continue to contribute to school attachment implies a unique effects of structural cohesion, that would have been wrongly attributed to the other measures of network structure. 21 In addition to the nestedness level, we also tested a model using the largest k-connectivity value for each student. The results are very similar. Students involved in high-cohesion groups had higher levels of school attachment. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 21 Cohesion among Large American Businesses A long-standing research tradition has focused on the interlocking directorates of large firms (Mizruchi 1982; 1992; Palmer et al. 1986; Roy 1983; Roy and Bonacich 1988; Useem 1984). An important question in this literature, "at the core of the debate over the extent to which American society is democratic” (Mizruchi, 1992 p.32), is to what extent business in the U.S. is unified and if so, whether it is collusive. If businesses collude in the political sphere, then democracy is threatened. Yet, much of the literature has been vague in defining exactly what constitutes business unity, and thus empirical determination of the extent and effect of business unity (and possible collusion) is hard to identify. Without treading on the issue of collusion per se, we approach the question of business unity as a problem of structural cohesion. Since structural cohesion facilitates the flow of information and influence, coordinated action, and thus political activity, ought to be more similar among pairs of firms that are similarly embedded in a structurally cohesive group. Mizruchi (1992) makes this argument well, and highlights the importance of financial institutions for unifying business activity. He identifies the number of indirect interlocks between two firms as “...the number of banks and insurance companies that have direct interlocks with both manufacturing firms in the dyad” (p.108). Using data on large manufacturing firms, we identify the cohesive group structure based on indirect interlocks and relate this structure to similarities in political action. The sample Mizruchi constructed consists of 57 of the largest manufacturing firms drawn from “the twenty major manufacturing industries in the U.S. Census Bureau’s Standard Industrial Classification Scheme” in 1980 (Mizruchi 1992, p.91). In addition to data on directorship structure, he collected data on industry, common stockholding, governmental regulations and political activity. The question of interest is whether the structure of relations among firms affects the similarity of their behavior. To explore whether firms that are similarly embedded also make similar political contributions, Mizruchi constructs a dyad-level political contribution similarity Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 22 score.22 He models this pair-level similarity as a function of geographic proximity, industry, financial interdependence, government regulations, and interlock structure. A cohesive blocking of this network reveals that most firms are involved in a strongly cohesive group, with 51 of the 57 firms members of the largest bicomponent. The nestedness structure consists of a single hierarchy that is 19 layers deep, and at the lowest level (at which no further minimum cuts can be made which would not isolate all nodes), 28 firms are members of a 14-connected component (the strongest k-component in the graph). Does joint membership in more deeply nested subsets lead to greater political action similarity? To answer this question, we add an indicator for the deepest layer within which both firms in a dyad are nested. Thus, if firm i is a member of the 2 layer but not the third, and firm j is a member of the 4 layer but not the fifth, the dyad is coded as being nested in the 2 layer. As with the prior school example, we control for other network features. Table 3 presents the results of this model. (Table 3 about here) In column one, we replicate the analysis presented in Mizruchi (1992), and in the remaining models we present findings with additional network indicators.23 In the baseline model, we find that the more financial stockholders two firms have in common the greater the similarity of their political contributions. Additionally, indirect interlocks through financial institutions or jointly receiving defense contracts leads to similarity of political action. In model 2, we add the nestedness measure.24 Net of the effects identified in model 1, we find a strong positive impact of cohesion within the indirect interlock network. As in the school networks, we test for the po22 The score is calculated as j i ij ij n n n S = , where Sij = the similarity score, nij equals the number of common campaign contributions, and ni and nj equal the number of contributions firm i and j make respectively. The dyad level analysis is based on 1596 firm dyads. 23 Following Mizruchi (1992, p.121) we use the nonparametric quadratic assignment procedure (QAP) to assess the significance level of the regression coefficients. See Mizruchi for measurement details. 24 If instead of the joint nestedness level, we use the connectivity level (k) for the highest k both members are involved in, we find substantively similar results. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 23 tentially confounding effects of degree and centrality.25 No effect of network degree is evident, but betweenness centrality does evidence a moderate association with political similarity. When both variables are entered into the model, the statistical significance of nestedness drops slightly, but the magnitude of the effect remains constant. Based on the standardized coefficient values, nestedness has the strongest effect in each of the models 2-5. The more deeply nested a given dyad is in the overall network structure, the more similar their political contributions. The nestedness measure of structural cohesion is a significant predictor of political similarity, in addition to the effect of direct adjacency created through financial interlocks. Mizruchi identifies two potential explanations for the importance of financial interlocking on political behavior. Following Mintz and Schwartz (1985), banks and financial institutions may exercise control of firms by sitting on their boards. As such, two firms that share many such financial ties face many of the same influencing pressures and therefore behave similarly. A second argument, building on the debate surrounding structural equivalence and cohesion (Burt 1978; 1982), is that actors in similar network positions (i.e. with similar patterns of ties to similar third parties) ought to behave similarly. As in our argument for structural cohesion, Friedkin (1984) argues that influence travels through multiple paths, and thus has an effect beyond the direct link between two actors. His argument is supported by our finding that the multiple, independent paths which link pairs of structurally cohesive actors help transfer information among firms in a way that is able to coordinate politically similar activity. Theoretical Implications of Structural Cohesion The previous empirical examples demonstrate the empirical validity of this particular conception of social cohesion. Because we have a formal specification for structural cohesion, we can link network structure to actor mechanisms (such as information flow) to derive further theo25 We cannot test for density-based subgroup effects, because NEGOPY assigns all members to the same group. This is a result of the high average degree within this network. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 24 retical consequences of structural cohesion. A defining property of a k-component (by Menger's Theorem) is that every pair of actors in the collectivity is connected by at least k independent paths. The presence of multiple paths, passing through different actors, implies that if any one actor is removed, alternative linkages among members still exist to maintain social solidarity. Information and resources can flow through multiple paths, making control of resources within the group by a small (< k) number of people difficult. While many potential implications likely follow within particular substantive areas, we focus below on three broad types of sociological questions: resource / risk flow, community & class formation, and power. Resource and risk flow A focus on structural cohesion provides new insights into diffusion, augmenting current approaches that focus largely on network distance. The length of a path is often considered critical for the flow of goods through a network, as flow may degrade with relational distance. That is, the probability that a resource flows between two non-adjacent actors is equal to the product of each dyadic transition probability along the path(s) connecting them. When multiplied over long distances, the efficacy of the information diminishes even if the pairwise transmission probability is high. For example, the probability that a message will arrive intact over a 6-step chain26 when each dyadic transmission probability is 0.9 will be 0.53. The fragility of long-distance communication rests on the fact that at any step in the communication chain, one person's failure to pass the information will disrupt the flow. For a structurally cohesive group, however, expected information degradation decreases with each additional independent path in the network. For example, the comparable probability of a 6-step communication arriving given two independent paths is 0.78.27 As the number of in26 The purported average acquaintance distance among all people in the United States (Milgram 1969). 27 We calculate this as the product of the dyadic probabilities for each path, minus the probability of transmission through both paths. Thus, for two paths the formula is 2(pij) -(pij), where d is the distance. This is a simplification, as dyadic transmission rates are often variable and highly-context specific. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 25 dependent paths increases, the likelihood of the information transmission increases. When the flow is not subject to degradation, but only to interruption, increasing connectivity will provide faster and more reliable transmission throughout the network.28 In a high-connectivity network, even if many people stop transmission (effectively removing themselves from the network), alternate paths provide an opportunity for spread. Non-overlapping (k+l)-cohesive subgroups within a larger k-connected population have important implications for the long-distance carrying capacity of the network. Local pockets of high connectivity act as amplifying substations for information (or resource, or viral) flow that comes into the more highly connected group, boosting a signal’s strength29, and sending it back out into the wider population. This pattern directly reflects the core concept of sexually transmitted diseases (Rothenberg et al. 1996), which may account for the high prevalence of many STDs in the face of quite low pair-wise transmission probabilities. The observed patterns typical in small world graphs (Milgram 1969; Watts 1999) are a natural result of local relational action nested within a larger network setting. Thus, processes based on the formal properties of connectivity may account for many of the observed substantive features of small world networks. Social network researchers have traditionally focused on small, highly connected groups. Identifying connectivity as a central element of cohesion frees us from focusing on these small groups by identifying patterns through which influence or information can travel long distances. The rise of electronic communication and distributed information systems suggest that distance will become less salient as information can travel through channels that are robust to degradation. By extending our vision of cohesion from small local groups to large, extended relations, we are able to capture essential elements of large-scale social organization that have only been hinted at 28 Computer viruses are an excellent example of such flows, as recent outbreaks such as "Melissa" and the "Love Bug" show. 29 Signal amplification might depend on averaging or combining degraded copies of the same signal or message so as to filter noise, thus increasing reliability. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 26 by previous social network research, providing an empirical tool for understanding realistically sized lived communities Community & Class Formation Structural cohesion provides us with a useful tool for understanding processes related to the formation of social classes, ethnicity, and social institutions. While a longstanding promise of network research (Rapoport and Horvath 1961; Emirbayer 1997; White et al. 1976), the conceptual tools needed to identify the empirical traces of such processes have been sorely lacking. In contrast, Brudner and White (1997) showed that membership in a structurally cohesive group based on marital ties among households in an Austrian farming village was correlated with stratified class membership, defined by single-heir succession to ownership of the productive resources of farmsteads and farmlands. Linking structurally cohesive subgroup membership to institutions that provide formal access to power suggests a new approach to the study of social stratification and the state. White et al. (1999), for example, identify an informally organized “invisible state” created by the intersections of structurally cohesive groups across multiple administrative levels. They show that those who share administrative offices during overlapping time spans build dense clique-like social ties within a political nucleus while maintaining sparse locally tree-like ties with structurally cohesive groups (globally multiconnected) in the larger region and community. The locally dense and the globally sparse multiconnected ties act as different kinds of amplifiers for the feedback relations between larger cohesive groups and their government representatives. In his classic statement on the development of social capital, Coleman (1988), argues that a closed-loop structure connecting adolescents’ friends’ parents increases effective normative regulation in a community. The key structural feature responsible for this increased ability is that biconnected components (loops) allow information to flow freely throughout the community, allowing normative ideas to be exchanged and reinforced. Communities where parents are connected to each other only indirectly through adolescents will likely have weaker normative reguStructural Cohesion and Embeddedness 27 lation. Adolescents in such communities occupy a powerful position, controlling the flow of information. This fact is well recognized by any teen that successfully dupes parents into thinking they are at a friend’s house while the friend similarly claimed to be at theirs. In general, the emergence of community through exchange occurs when goods and information cycle through the community, as evidenced clearly in work on generalized exchange (Bearman 1997). Power The substantive character of groups that are vulnerable to unilateral action differ significantly from those expected of groups with multiple independent connections. The group as a whole is vulnerable to the will and activities of those who can destroy the group by leaving. Moreover, actors that can disconnect the group are also actors that can control the flow of resources in the network. As has long been known from Network Exchange Theory, networks with structural features leading to control of resource flow generate power inequality (Willer 1999). In contrast to weak structurally cohesive groups, however, collectivities that do not depend on individual actors are less easily segmented. The presence of multiple paths, passing through different actors, implies that if any one actor is removed, alternative linkages among members still exist to maintain social solidarity. Information and resources can flow through multiple paths, making minority control of resources within the group difficult. As such, the inequality of power implicit in weakly cohesive structures is not so pronounced in stronger ones. In general, structurally cohesive networks are characterized by a reduction in the power provided by structural holes (Burt 1992), as local holes are closed at longer distances, uniting the entire group. The development of "just-in-time" inventory systems provides a compelling example. When viewed as a network of resource flows, the most efficient production systems resemble spanning trees, with tight coupling among plants. Under this structure, labor has accentuated power, since strikes, which effectively remove the struck factory from the production network, disconnect the entire production line. Recent trends toward "just-in-time" production processes are not new, but were used extensively early in the auto industry. It became clear, however, that Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 28 this production structure gave labor power. To counter, management expanded the production network to include alternative sources (other factories and storehouses), building redundancy (i.e. structural cohesion) into the system (Schwartz, 2001). Conclusion and Discussion Social solidarity is a central concept in sociology. We have argued that solidarity can be analytically divided into two components, an ideational component and a relational component. We have defined structural cohesion as a measure of the relational component. The essential substantive feature of a strongly cohesive group is that it has a status beyond any individual group member. We operationalize this conception of a social cohesion through the graph theoretic property of connectivity (Harary et al. 1965), showing that structural cohesion increases with each additional independent path in a network. When does cohesion start? Following authors such as Markovsky and Lawler (1994), we argue that cohesion starts (weakly) when every actor can reach every other actor through at least a single relational path. The paths that link actors are the social glue holding them together. We show that structural cohesion scales in that it is weakest when there is one path connecting actors, stronger when there are two, stronger yet with three, and finally when, for n actors, there are almost as many (n-1) independent paths between them. Our conceptualization of structural cohesion simultaneously provides an operationalization of one dimension of network embeddedness. Cohesive sets in a network are nested, such that highly cohesive groups are nested within less cohesive groups. Since the process for identifying the nested connectivity sets is based on identifying the most fragile points in a network, those actors who are involved in the most highly connected portions of the network are often deeply insulated from perturbations in the overall network. Given the theoretical importance of the generalized concept of embeddedness in sociology, a structural measure of one dimension of embeddedness is an important asset to help provide clear empirical examinations of embeddedness. Structural Cohesion and Embeddedness 29 Our presentation of structural cohesion has focused on the basic network features of social cohesion, without respect to the particular features that might be relevant in any given case. We suspect that researchers may modify aspects of our conception of cohesion as theory dictates. Thus, in settings where flows degrade quickly, one could account for the level of cohesion by incorporating a measure of path length, tie strength, or the ratio of connectivity to group size. We caution, however, that much of the theoretical power of our conception of cohesion rests on the idea that multiple, indirect paths, (perhaps routed through strongly cohesive subgroups), can magnify signals such that long distances can be united through social connections. Additionally, while we expect that cohesive groups will also be stable groups, this is an empirical question that can only be answered in particular settings. The qualitative relational feature, as Simmel pointed out, is whether a group depends on particular individuals for its group status. The relevant quantitative measure is the number of individuals whose involvement is required to keep the group connected. In the present paper, we have applied our method in an effort to show how cohesion might be profitably used in different types of empirical settings. The settings tested here are clearly only a small subset of the types of settings where cohesion might be important. Further research is required to understand how relation type or strength affects the importance of cohesive structures for substantive outcomes. Our hope is that by providing a clear and concise definition and operationalization of structural cohesion, and a methodological tool for such analyses, researchers in all fields will better be able to