Social isolation, survey nonresponse, and nonresponse bias: An empirical evaluation using social network data within an organization
2017
- 1,128Usage
- 1Mentions
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage1,128
- Downloads1,099
- 1,099
- Abstract Views29
- Mentions1
- Blog Mentions1
- 1
Most Recent Blog
Could Social Alienation Among Some Trump Supporters Help Explain Why Polls Underestimated Trump Again?
Donald Trump was once again underestimated by the polls. On the one hand, this polling error is fairly normal. We’re not talking about huge polling misses, and the polls still “called” the election correctly: Joe Biden won. But that said, it does seem as if polls are still failing to capture some of Trump’s support. There are a number of possible explanations for this, and no definitive answers, b
Article Description
Survey researchers have long hypothesized that social isolation negatively affects the probability of survey participation and biases survey estimates. Previous research, however, has relied on proxy measures of isolation, such as being a marginalized group member within a population. We re-examine the relationship between social isolation and survey participation using direct measures of social isolation derived from social network data; specifically, instrumental research and expressive friendship connections among faculty within academic departments. Using a reconceptualization of social isolation, we find that social network isolation is negatively associated with unit response. Among women (a numerical minority group within the organization), we further find that social group isolation (i.e., lacking instrumental network connections to men, the majority group in the organization) is negatively associated with survey participation. Finally, we show that some survey estimates are systematically biased due to nonparticipation from socially isolated people.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know