What do centrality measures measure in psychological networks?

Centrality indices are a popular tool to analyze structural aspects of psychological networks. As centrality indices were originally developed in the context of social networks, it is unclear to what extent these indices are suitable in a psychological network context. In this article we critically examine several issues with the use of the most popular centrality indices in psychological networks: degree, betweenness, and closeness centrality. We show that problems with centrality indices discussed in the social network literature also apply to the psychological networks. Assumptions underlying centrality indices, such as presence of a flow and shortest paths, may not correspond with a general theory of how psychological variables relate to one another. Furthermore, the assumptions of node distinctiveness and node exchangeability may not hold in psychological networks. We conclude that, for psychological networks, betweenness and closeness centrality seem especially unsuitable as measures of node importance. We therefore suggest three ways forward: (a) using centrality measures that are tailored to the psychological network context, (b) reconsidering existing measures of importance used in statistical models underlying psychological networks, and (c) discarding the concept of node centrality entirely. Foremost, we argue that one has to make explicit what one means when one states that a node is central, and what assumptions the centrality measure of choice entails, to make sure that there is a match between the process under study and the centrality measure that is used.ISSN:0021-843XISSN:0096-851XISSN:0145-2339ISSN:0145-2347ISSN:1939-184

On the limiting behavior of parameter-dependent network centrality measures

We consider a broad class of walk-based, parameterized node centrality measures for network analysis. These measures are expressed in terms of functions of the adjacency matrix and generalize various well-known centrality indices, including Katz and subgraph centrality. We show that the parameter can be "tuned" to interpolate between degree and eigenvector centrality, which appear as limiting cases. Our analysis helps explain certain correlations often observed between the rankings obtained using different centrality measures, and provides some guidance for the tuning of parameters. We also highlight the roles played by the spectral gap of the adjacency matrix and by the number of triangles in the network. Our analysis covers both undirected and directed networks, including weighted ones. A brief discussion of PageRank is also given.Comment: First 22 pages are the paper, pages 22-38 are the supplementary material

Street centrality and land use intensity in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

This paper examines the relationship between street centrality and land use intensity in Baton Rouge, Louisiana. Street centrality is calibrated in terms of a node's closeness, betweenness and straightness on the road network. Land use intensity is measured by population (residential) and employment (business) densities in census tracts, respectively and combined. Two CIS-based methods are used to transform data sets of centrality (at network nodes) and densities (in census tracts) to one unit for correlation analysis. The kernel density estimation (KDE) converts both measures to raster pixels, and the floating catchment area (FCA) method computes average centrality values around census tracts. Results indicate that population and employment densities are highly correlated with street centrality values. Among the three centrality indices, closeness exhibits the highest correlation with land use densities, straightness the next and betweenness the last. This confirms that street centrality captures location advantage in a city and plays a crucial role in shaping the intraurban variation of land use intensity. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved

Centrality Measures in Spatial Networks of Urban Streets

We study centrality in urban street patterns of different world cities represented as networks in geographical space. The results indicate that a spatial analysis based on a set of four centrality indices allows an extended visualization and characterization of the city structure. Planned and self-organized cities clearly belong to two different universality classes. In particular, self-organized cities exhibit scale-free properties similar to those found in the degree distributions of non-spatial networks.Comment: 4 pages, 3 figure