Social Networks 10 (1988) 233-253 233

North-Holland

SORTING OUT CENTRALITY: AN ANALYSIS

OF THE PERFORMANCE OF FOUR CENTRALITY MODELS
IN REAL AND SIMULATED NETWORKS *

John M. BOLLAND
Unroersrty of Alabama **

Although the concept of centrality has been well developed m the social networks hterature, Its
emplncal development has lagged somewhat Thus paper moves a step m that dlrectlon by
assessing the performance of four centrality models under a vanety of known and controlled
situations It begms by exammmg the assumptions underlying each model, as well as Its behavior
m a commumty influence network. It then assesses the robustness and sensltlvlty of each model
under condltlons of random and systematic variation Introduced mto tbs network.

Introduction

The concept of centrality has eqoyed a central place in the study of

social networks for nearly 40 years. Early models of centrality (e.g.,
Bavelas 1948) were hindered by unjustifiable mathematical foundation,
and measures that were developed from them tended to be computa-
tionally so complex that they were difficult to interpret (Freeman
1979). In fact, following this initial activity, interest in centrality lay
largely dormant until mathematical graph theory had been applied to
the study of social networks (e.g., Harary et al. 1965), and measures of
centrality could be grounded in theory. Following this development,
Laumann and his colleagues (e.g., Laumann and Pappi 1976; Laumann
et al. 1977) used smallest-space scaling to depict network relationship
in social space (based on path distances among network members).
Although this approach solved much of the problem, it still relied on an

* Thus 1s a rewslon of a paper ongmally presented at the 1986 meeting of the Sunbelt Social
Network Conference. It benefitted from comments by Phil Bonaclch, Wayne Baker, Kathleen
Bolland, and anonymous reviewers
l * Instrtute for Social Science Research, Umverslty of Alabama, P.O. Box 587, Tuscaloosa, AL
35487, U S A.

0378-8733/88/$3.50 0 1988, Elsevler Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland)

234 J.M Bolland / The perJormance of Jour centralrty models

atheoretical scaling algorithm to generate the spatial representation of

the network, and hence the centrality coordinates of its members. Just
as important, it attempted to model flows, which represent an inher-
ently dynamic process upon which centrality is based, using an inher-
ently static technique. A third approach (Bonacich 1971; Freeman
1979) conquered this obstacle by employing graph-theoretical princi-
ples to develop quasi-dynamic models of centrality as network flow.
Unfortunately, the empirical application of centrality models has
lagged far behind their conceptual development. Recently, we have
witnessed refinements of the quasi-dynamic models, in which various
components of centrality are partitioned (e.g., Mizruchi et al. 1986;
Bonacich 1987). Before these refinements, which represent further
conceptual development, proceed too far, however, it is worthwhile to
return to the basic models of Bonacich and Freeman to explore both
their substantive assumptions and their empirical behavior, for this
information should guide the search for desirable modifications. In this
paper, I use several criteria to evaluate each of four centrality models:
these criteria are the unique information it provides, its robustness to
random error, and its sensitivity to systematic variation m the network.

Quasi-dynamic models of network centrality

If graphs of networks could be derived precisely from interpersonal

relations, network centrality could be established visually. But since
any given set of relationships can be represented by a large number of
different graphic representations, we must define centrality mathemati-
cally, with relationships specified by a binary matrix A = a[ I, j]. In
most treatments, A is a symmetrical matrix, with a,, = 1 if I IS linked
to j; otherwise, a,, = 0. For discussion purposes, let the principal
diagonal of A equal one (i.e., cz,, = 1).
Freeman (1979) developed three mathematical models of centrality
(C), and Bonacich (1971) developed a fourth. Freeman’s first model is
based on degree, with CD(,) equal to the number of other vertices
directly linked to vertex z.

c D(l) = IL,
J
(1)
 J M Bolland / The performance of four centrahty models 235

where n = the number of vertices in the network. To control for

network size,

c D(J)
C’D(r) = -
n-l’

Freeman’s second model is based on closeness, and it reflects the

mean length of the geodesic (i.e., shortest path) connecting i to each
other vertex in the network. Since path length represents inverse
centrality,

n-l
c’ =-
C(r) n
Cd*,

where d,, = the length of the geodesic connecting I to j.

Freeman’s third model is based on betweenness, reflecting the extent
to which a vertex is an intermediary on the various geodesics that link
other vertices in the network. C,(,,-is based on b rJm.the proportion of
the geodesics linking J and m on which i falls.

g EJm
b ‘Jm =-

g Jm

whereglrn = the number of geodesics containing I that connect j to

m, and g,, = the number of geodesics connecting j to m.

c B(r) = if b,,, (i #j, 2# ml. (5)

/cm

C’B(rj controls for network size:

2CB(,,
c’B(r) =
?I*-3n+2’

Bonacich’s model is based on the contmuing flow of i’s messages

through the network, extending the logic of degree and closeness. By
definition, u:l’ equals the numbers of paths of length = 1 linking z and
236 J M Bolland / The performonce of four centralrty models

j. This can be extended to any exponent m, however, such that a,(y)

equals the number of paths of length ,< m that connect z and J. If

a(m)
'J ’ (7)

Us,, equals z’s degree when m = 1, and the number of paths of length
i m originating at i when m > 1. By setting m to a sufficiently large
value, V = u[i] converges to an equilibrium, although the values of V
tend toward infinity. Bonacich showed that by dividing Equation (7) by
A” (where X is the largest eigenvalue of A ), V converges to the
eigenvector of A. In turn,

?I,
C’CF(r) =

where u(. ) = the maximum value of V.

These models can also be used to assess network centrahzatlon, or
the extent to which the network is dominated by a single vertex.
Freeman (1979) develop a set of equations to determine the differential
centrality between the most central vertex and all other vertices,
normalized to control for network size. For example, the betweenness
model ytelds 1

CW
I

) = (9)
Max
i
iG(.)- G,,))
I i

where CL, ) = the centrality

l of the network’s most central vertex.
Similar procedures are used to calculate Cc., ), C,, ), and CcF( ). Free-
man further showed that maximum values occur in wheel networks

’ I ~111 use the followmg notanon throughout the paper CL,, denotes I’S centrahty based on
betweenness, CW ) denotes network centrahzatlon based on betweenness, and C, denotes the
general betweenness model Smular notation IS used to described closeness, degree, and contmumg
flow. In addltlon, Cc,, denotes I’S centrahty based on some speclfxd model, and C,) denotes
network centrahzatlon speclfvxl by that model
 J M Bolland / The performance of four centralrty models 231

with a single hub (where C&.) = 1, C& 1 ) = 1, and C& ) = l), and he l

derived the following denominators for C,, ), Ccc ), and Co, ).

(11)

Maximum centralization for the continuous flow model also occurs in a

wheel network, with

Max(z(C&.) - Cd,,,)) = n - (n - l)‘- 1. (13)

CcFo is not strictly comparable with the other centralization measures,

however, since C& . ) is artificially set to 1.0. Were this normalization
to occur for C& * ), for example, the numerator of CB(.) would equal
(l/CB~*,)~(UC&*, - CL,,,)). Thus, the following equivalence exists
between CB(.) and Ccr( ):

CCF() = (1/c;(*), * ‘B(). 04)

Similar equivalencies can be set for C, ) and Ccc ).

Each model equates centrality with the ability to facilitate or hinder
network flow, and therein lies its quasi-dynamic quality: even though it
is based on a static measure of network structure, it assesses the likely
distribution of some resource (e.g., influence) among network members
after some specified period of time. But each model considers a
somewhat different aspect of network flow. For example, Freeman
equated C&,, with activity in the network, C&,, with efficiency, and
C’n(,) with social control. Although Bonacich did not directly suggest
such meaning, the logic of CdF(,) combines activity and efficiency.
Further, each model makes at least two assumptions about the nature
of this flow, one concerning the decay of resources over distance and
time and the other concerning the paths through which resources are
able to flow. Consider a general decay function of the form

s = d-” (15)
238 J M Bolland / The performance offour centralrty models

where s = the strength of the resource after it has traveled distance d.

Obviously, the larger the value of x, the quicker the deterioration of the
resource. The four models assume different deterioration rates (re-
flected in different values of x); for example, C, assumes that x = cc
(i.e., immediate deterioration), while C, and Cc, assume that x = 0
(i.e., no deterioration). Further, they assume different flow dynamics,
reflected in the types of paths (e.g., geodesics) through which resources
flow. These assumptions are specified below:

Model x Flow dynamm

CD ‘x geodesm/all paths
CC 1 geodesm
CB 0 geodesm
c CF 0 all paths

Theoretically, the choice of a model should be governed by the

compatibility of its assumptions concerning network flow with those of
the theory to which it is applied. But more realistically, the empirical
behavior of each model must also be considered. In the following
sections, I examine the empirical behavior of the four models. In Study
I, I examine their behavior in a network of influence relationships
regarding community education. In Study II, I examine their robust-
ness and sensitivity to random and systematic variation introduced into
this network.

Study I: Influence relationships in Chillicothe, Ohio

I calculated indices of centrality corresponding to the four models from

data describing influence relationships among political participants in
the education program in Chillicothe, a city of 25,000 people located in
Ross County, Ohio. In 1973, I interviewed 40 people from a list of 120
potential influentials, and based on their mutual contact and/or attri-
butions of importance, I identified a network of mutual influence
relationships (summarized as A; see Bolland 1985, for a rationale).
Most of the respondents were employees of the school district, al-
though other respondents included school board members, active citi-
zens, and a number of “external” participants, (e.g., teachers and
administrators from the Ross County School District, the administrator
of the local mental retardation facility, and employees of the local
parochial school district). Figure 1 shows a graph of A.
 J.M Bolland / The performance of four centrahty models 239

Fig 1 Educational pohcy network m Chdhcothe, Ohlo

The correlations among the four centrality indices are reported in

Table 1. These suggest the similarity between C&,,, Cd,,, and C&r(,),
and the relative difference between these three indices and CL,,,. This
pattern is similar to that I found in other communities, suggesting its
generality across different networks. This pattern is also similar to that
240 J A4 Bolland / The performance offourcentralrty models

I found with the simulated data reported in Study II. These correla-
tions suggest that CL,, conveys the most unique information about the
centrality of individual vertices. Several specific comparisons from the
Chillicothe data, while supportmg this conclusion, also suggest that
C’cr(,) offers unique insights into centrality within the network.

(1) C&p in comparison with the other three models, deflates the
centrality of external network members (e.g., those from the county
and parochial school districts: vertices #II, #17, #21, #23,
#66, #70, #84, #lOO).
(2) C&C,,9 m comparison with the other models, mflates the centrality
of vertex #26, an elementary school principal at the time of the
study. A year later, he was appointed Assistant Supermtendent.
(3) CL,,,, in comparison with the other models, deflates the centrality
of vertex #4, a clerk in the Chillicothe School District Office
whose ties to other staff members were based exclusively on
frequent interaction rather than attributions of importance.
(4) CL,,,9 in comparison with the other models, inflates the centrality
of vertices # 70 and # 100, both of whom serve boundary-spanning
functions in the network.

The analysis of network centralization also suggests sirmlarities and

differences among the four models, as reported in Table 1. In general,
CcF( ) shows the Chillicothe network to be most centralized, while C,, )
shows it to be least centralized. This result is expected for Cc.( ), since
inequalities in the centrality of vertices are amplified through the
continuing flow of resources through the network. It is less clear,
however, that C,() should show the network to be least centralized;

Table 1
Intercorrelatlons among four centrahty models and network centrahzatlon mdlces for the Chdh-
cothe data

Correlations Centrahzatlon
I I
C&J) C’C(J) CW, C&c,, Ongmal Transformed C,,
CatI, 0 74 0.76 0 51 0.173 0217
Ccc,,
, 0 89 0 78 0 242 0 419
Cdl, 0 83 0 222 0 291
C’CR,) 0 919
 J M Bolland / The performance offour centralrty models 241

this finding may be an idiosyncratic artifact of the Chillicothe network.

In only one case - that of CcF() relative to Ccc) - is the discrepancy
among indices of centrahzation large, however, suggesting that they all
yield approximately similar conclusions about network structure.

Study II: Simulations

In these analyses, I assume that any observation a,, is a random

variable subject to sampling error at different times and under different
situations. To test the robustness of the models, I simulated this
sampling error by randomly perturbing A derived from the Chillicothe
data (using the BASIC random number generator and a switching
algorithm) to create A’. This yielded 100 replications of A’ for each of
5 levels of error: 0.02, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, and 0.20. This type of random
error might typically occur if respondents identify significant others
from memory, or if they are allowed unlimited choices from a list.
This assumption (Assumption I) represents a worst-case scenario,
however, for it distorts A’ whenever the true density of the underlying
social system differs from 0.5. In the Chillicothe data, where density
equals 0.115, eight times more zeros are switched to ones than ones-to-
zeros, and the density in A’ rises to 0.271 at 20% error. Under
alternative Assumption II, density remains constant in the face of
measurement error (a best-case scenario), reflecting a measurement
strategy wherein the number of sociometric choices is fixed at an
appropriate level. Using the BASIC random number generator and a
modified switching algorithm (that maintained constant density), I
generated 100 replications of A’ for the same error levels as above.
These simulations, conducted for both Assumption I and Assumption
II, represent the random vanatlon condztion.
I also introduced systematic variation into A by adding randomly-
selected links to each of four target vertices: #2, #9, #ll, and #94
(see Figure 1). I selected these targets according to several criteria.
First, they include one clearly central individual (#2), one somewhat
central individual (# ll), and two clearly peripheral individuals ( # 9,
#94). Second, none of the four individuals are linked to one another.
Third, the two peripheral individuals represent different parts of the
network: one is relatively distant from the main school district organi-
 242 J M Bolland / The performance
offour centrahty models

lo-

09-
c
0
R 06-
R
E
L 07-
*
T 06-
0
N OS-

04-

03: , , I I r 031 , , , I r
0 02 05 10 15 20 0 02 05 10 15 20
error error
Fig 2 (a) Mean Pearson correlation between unperturbed centrahty mdlces and those dewed
from randomly perturbed data under Assumption I. (b) Mean Pearson correlation between
unperturbed centrahty mdlces and those denved from randomly perturbed data under Assump-
tlon II

zation (#94), while the other is relatively proximal (#9). Finally, # 11

is a boundary spanner between the city and the county school districts.
For each target vertex, I generated 100 replications of A’ at each of five
levels of variation (corresponding to the addition of 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5
random links connecting it to other vertices). 2

Analysis of network centrahty

Random vanatlon.
I initially assessed the robustness of each model under each assumption
as the Pearson correlation between the centrality of the vertices in A
and their centrality in each of the replications of A’; Figure 2 shows
these results for each error level. Under Assumption I, the mean
correlation for C’B(rj quickly becomes unsatisfactory with increasing
error, while that for the other three models deteriorates less rapidly.
Under Assumption II, deterioration is less rapid, with C&,, and Cd,,
showing considerable robustness even at high error levels. Since de-

’ When a smgle lmk 1s added, N and the degree of the target vertex constram the number of
rephcatlons. Thus, for vertex #2 (whose degree equals ten), only 21 rephcatlons are possible
wthout redundancy In contrast, vertices #9 and #94 each have a degree equal to one, so 30
rephcatlons are possible wthout redundancy
 J.M Bolland / The performance offourcentralrty models 243

terioration is approximately a linear function of error, subsequent

analyses of random variation report only the results for 20% error. 3
To obtain a better understanding of how error affects the perfor-
mance of the four models, I calculated the bias and the standard error
for the replications of A’. Since the four centrality indices are calcu-
lated in different umts, I converted each distribution to z-scores for
these analyses. For each model,

Bias(,) = E&J - @(I, 06)

where O(,, = I’S centrality in A and E(C,,,) = z’s mean centrality across
the 100 replications of A’ for each error level. The standard error of
C(I, K(,,) eq uals the standard deviation of Cc,, across the 100 repli-
cations of A’ for each error level. Obviously, since the mean of a
distribution of z-scores is zero, the overall bias of any perturbed model
is also zero. But for any given vertex, the model may or may not be
biased.
Table 2 reports Bias(,) and &ccc,,for the four vertices for each model
under the 20% error condition for each assumption. In general, CL,,,
and CL,,, show the greatest bias under Assumption I, while C&,, and
C&,) show the least. However, C&,, shows comparatively high bias for
vertex #94; this suggests that while Cc, may be comparatively unbi-
ased at the network’s center, it is biased at the network’s periphery. In
the same way, C&,, shows considerable bias for vertex #ll, suggest-
ing that it may be biased for network bridges. An analysis of 5occl,
under Assumption I shows little difference in variability for the four
models or for different regions of the network. Under Assumption II,
the performance of all models improves substantially. However, CL,,,
remains the most biased of the models, and C&(rj remains the most
unbiased of the models. Further, CL,,, shows the greatest overall
variability, while C&r(,) shows the least variability. The notable excep-
tion to this generalization, however, is the poor performance of C&,,
for vertex #94.

Systematic variatzon.
This type of variation might occur were an individual to expand his or

3 I omt the complete results for each error level m ths paper to conserve space. These results are
avadable upon request.
244 J M Bolland / The offourcenrralrty
performance models

Table 2
Mean standardued centrahty mdlces, bias, and standard errors of models for the random
vanatlon condltlon

Assumption I

ID Error
2 000 0 95 1 61 2 51 2 39
0 20 1 47 0 52 123 138 - -0.23 0 79 158 - -093 083 1.59 -0 80 0.75
9 000 - 0.89 -041 - 1 00 -053
0.20 -045 044 071 -053 0 12 0.89 -053 047 084 -049 0 04 0 79
11 0.00 0 62 0.48 0 55 -053
0 20 036 -0.26 101 029 - 019 086 -034 0 21 0.90 0 17 0.70 0 89
94 000 -089 -153 -1.00 -087
0 20 -039 050 084 -061 092 096 -056 044 084 -065 022 083

ID Error
2 000 0 95 1 61 2.51 2 39
0 20 147 052 100 137 -024 069 2.26 - -0 25 0.59 231 -008 039
9 000 -089 -041 - 1 00 -0.53
0 20 - 0.68 021 049 -049 -0.08 052 -0 87 013 038 -0.54 -001 027
11 000 0 62 048 0 55 -0 53
0.20 0 36 026 0 74 025 -023 050 047 - -008 053 -035 018 036
94 0.00 -089 -153 -100 -087
0 20 -052 0.37 058 -086 067 0 78 -077 023 039 -084 003 029

her ego network. Each replication of A’ creates new links between a

target vertex and a randomly-selected set of other vertices in the
network. My criterion for evaluating each model is its responsiveness to
the expanded degree of the target vertex, which I assess in two ways:
focal sensztlulty, or change m the centrality of the target vertex, and
confzgural sensltmty, or variability in the centrality of the target vertex
across replications of A’. Unlike &ccc,,in the random variation condi-
tion, configural sensitivity is a positive characteristic, for it indicates
the sensitivity of the model to the network properties of a collective
(i.e., disturb one strand and the entire system responds). 4
Obviously, CL,,) should respond identically to additional links,
regardless of the target vertex. But the other indices should respond in
different ways, depending on the position of the target vertex in the
 J M Bolland / The performance of four centrahty models 245

Table 3
Local sensrtivtty and configural sensihvlty of network centrahty models m the fwe-lmk systematic
vanatton conditron

Ca Cc Co CCF

Target
#2 ongmal 0 95 1.61 2 51 2 39
5 lmks 4.26 3.31 0 33 264 103 024 3.72 1 21 0 04 292 0.53 003
#9 ongmal -089 - 0.41 -100 -053
5 lmks 108 197 0.64 1.05 146 029 0.84 1.84 002 033 086 033
#11 ongmal 0.62 0.48 0.55 -053
5 hnks 3 21 265 0.40 174 1.26 025 221 166 0.05 0.62 1 15 0.42
#94 ongmal - 0.89 - 1.53 -100 - 0.87
5 lmks 1.49 2.38 0 58 0.99 2 52 0.34 0.84 1 84 0 02 -001 0.86 037

network. Table 3 reports the five-link local sensitivity (A (,)) and

configural sensitivity (c?oc(,,). As expected, C&,, behaves in a similar
manner regardless of the target vertex, with roughly constant local
sensitivity and almost non-existent configural sensitivity. In contrast,
C’B(rj shows greatest local sensitivity for vertex #2, representing the
network’s center, and least local sensitivity for vertex #9, representing
one of its peripheral regions; ironically, CL,,, shows exactly the oppo-
site pattern for configural sensitivity. C&,, shows nearly uniform local
sensitivity in all but the most peripheral sections of the network, where
local sensitivity for vertex # 94 is quite high. Its configural sensitivity is
nearly uniform throughout the network. And C&,) is least sensitive for
vertex #2, representing the network’s center, and most sensitive for
vertex #ll, representing its bridging region. C&,) also shows little
configural sensitivity at the network’s center. Overall, C&,, is the most
locally sensitive of the four models, and C&(rj is the least locally
sensitive model. Ct,, also shows the greatest configurality, while CL,,,
shows the least.
As a final comparison, CL,,, shows the centrality of vertices #9,
# 11, and #94 to surpass vertex #2’s original centrality with the

4 Another potentrally useful concept IS global sensttwtty, or the extent to whxh lmks added to a
target vertex affect the centrahty of others m various regrons of the network In an expanded
version of thrs paper, I examine the global sensitwrty of each model, wtth the concluston that the
models show only modest differences on thts cntenon. These results are also avarlable upon
request.
246 J M Bolland / The performance
offourcentralrty models

Table 4
Mean centrahzatlon mdlces, bias, and standard errors of models for the random vanatlon
condltlon

Assumptron I

Error Untransformed Transformed C,,

c0 Blas( ) c0 Blas( )
CB 000 0 173 0.217
0 20 0.056 -0 117 0 019 0 030 -0 187 0004
Cc 0.00 0 242 0419
0 20 0 196 -0046 0.044 0 330 -0089 0 043
CD 000 0 222 0.297
0 20 0210 -0012 0 048 0 216 -0081 0 028
Cc, 000 0919
0.20 0.534 -0385 0 070

Assumptron II

Error Untransformed Transformed C,,

c, ) By, %, c, ) Blas() %,

CB 0.00 0 173 0 217

0.20 0 203 0 030 0 058 0 159 -0058 0009
Cc 0.00 0 242 0 419
0.20 0 264 0 022 0.044 0406 -0013 0 024
CD 000 0 222 0.297
0 20 0 202 -0020 0 036 0.243 -0054 0014
C CF 000 0 919
0 20 0 867 -0052 0 050

addition of 5 random links to their ego networks (in the case of vertex
# 11, this occurs with the addition of the first link). C&,, shows this to
occur only for vertex #11 (and just barely at the fifth link), while CL,,,
and C&r) show it not to occur at all. Thus, C&,, portrays the network
as volatile, while the other models (particularly I&,,,) portray it as
more stable.

Analysis of network centrahzatlon

In this analysis, I evaluate the performance of the four models in terms

of bias( ) and 6cc() of their network centralization indices. Table 4 shows
these performance indicators under 20% error for both assumptions of
the random variation condition. As I noted previously, and as is clear
from Table 4, CcF( ) is calculated in units different from the other three
 J M Bolland / The performance of four centralrty models 241

Table 5
Local sensmvlty and configural sensrtlvlty of network centrahzatlon models m the five-hnk
systematic vanation condltlon

Target vertex I Untransformed Transformed C,,

.
c0 A0 % ) c0 A,, %,
ca Ongmal 0.173 0.217
02 0.374 0 201 0 042 0.384 0 161 0.002
09 0.159 - 0.014 0.016 0.168 -0048 0002
11 0 263 0090 0.036 0 276 0 059 0004
94 0.162 - 0.011 0.031 0 173 -0043 0 001
Cc Ongmal 0.242 0 419
02 0.417 0.174 0 042 0 537 0 118 0.003
09 0244 0.002 0 022 0411 - 0.007 0.004
11 0.284 0.042 0.040 0.436 0 017 0006
94 0 255 0.013 0.032 0 431 0 012 0003
CD Ongnal 0.222 0 291
02 0 383 0.161 0006 0444 0 147 0003
09 0.222 0.000 0 016 0 295 -0002 0003
11 0.226 0.004 0017 0 291 - 0.006 0.004
94 0.221 -0.001 0.016 0.295 - 0.002 0002
cCF Ongmal 0 919
02 0.917 -0001 0006
09 0.897 - 0.002 0009
11 0 879 -0040 0 012
94 0.899 - 0.020 0.007

indices. Table 4 also reports the transformed values of CcFo, based on

Equation (14); all analyses are based on these transformed values.
Table 4 shows CBo and particularly CcFo to be comparatively more
biased than Ccc, and C,, under Assumption I, although the variabil-
ity of the four models is comparable. However, bias largely disappears
from all models under Assumption II.
In the systematic variation condition, all four measures show rea-
sonable sensitivity to changes at the network’s center (i.e., vertex #2),
as reported by Table 5. However, CcFo is least sensitive to these
changes, while C,, is the most sensitive. Each of the models also
shows greater centralization when five links added to #ll, with the
greatest increase for Cs(.) and the smallest for C,, (although Ccr()
actually declines relative to C,,); this is somewhat curious, since only
C’r,(rj shows #ll to become more central than #2 with the addition of
5 random links. All of the models are relatively insensitive to links
added to the network’s periphery. Ceo and Ccc) show relatively high
248 J M Bolland / The performance of four centrahty models

configural sensitivity, while C,, ) and C’cr( ) are, by comparison, config-

urally insensitive.

Conclusions

In evaluating the usefulness of each of the four models of centrality, I

consider three performance criteria: face valrdity, based on its theoreti-
cal properties as well as the results it produced for the Chillicothe data;
robustness, based on the simulations; and sensltrvzty, also based on the
simulations.

Evuluatlon of C,

The Chillicothe data show that CL,,, satisfactorily differentiates among

network members, producing a wide range of centrality (e.g., compare
the unperturbed centrality of the four target vertices m Table 2). Both
the Chillicothe results and the simulation results show it to be the least
intercorrelated of the four centrality measures, suggesting that it taps a
dimension of centrality different from the others. Its strict reliance on
geodesics may be troublesome for some applications, as might its
assumption of no resource decay. In the Chillicothe study, CL,,, was
best able to identify the centrality of boundary spanners, yet it also
seemed to attribute undue centrality to members of external subsys-
tems. On the other hand, it was able to properly attenuate the central-
ity of unimportant personnel in the Chillicothe School District Central
Office.
C’B(rJ is generally unstable in the face of random error under As-
sumption I, (although less so under Assumption II), particularly at the
network’s center. Its inability to capture the order of the original
distribution, reflected in the correlational analysis, demonstrates its
limitations. This is consistent with Freeman’s (1979) conclusion that
C’B(,j is the most fine-grained centrality model. C,, ), is biased under
Assumption I, although much less so under Assumption II.
C’B(,j is locally quite sensitive to systematic variation in the network;
m fact, it may be too locally sensitive, particularly at the network’s
center, making network structure seem too volatile. However, since the
center of the network may be inherently more stable than its periphery,
this trend may compensate for itself; but it does so in an unpredictable
 J M. Bolland / The performance of four centrahty models 249

way, causing ambiguity about the true meaning of C&,,. Even at the
network’s periphery, however, high local sensitivity is troublesome, and
C’B(Ij fails to pass the “sow’s ear” test. Like the sow’s ear, which cannot
be turned into a silk purse, neither vertex #94 nor vertex # 9 should
become more central than vertex #2 through modest networking
activity (i.e., the addition of five random links to their ego networks).
Yet, for both, C&,, shows this to happen. Finally, C&,, is relatively
sensitive to the exact configuration of the systematic change that is
introduced, suggesting its useful network properties.
Overall, C, seems quite useful for what it says that the other models
do not address. Its sensitivity provides it with a good capability of
capturing subtle network changes, reducing its likelihood of commit-
ting the network-equivalent of a Type II error; but at the same time, it
is very susceptible to Type I errors. Its interpretation therefore must be
cautious, particularly if data are prone to even modest error.

Evaluation of Cc

C’cc,) also shows reasonable differentiation among vertices in the Chil-

licothe network. It also attributes substantial centrality to boundary
spanners, suggesting its usefulness when the network contains a com-
plex subgroup structure. Its assumption of resource decay makes it
among the most useful of the models; however, its strict reliance on
geodesics is troublesome.
C&,, is relatively unbiased by random error under either assumption,
except at the network’s periphery, where its bias is substantial. Its
variability is quite high, however, under both error assumptions. These
factors account for its relative inability to capture the order of the
original distribution, demonstrated by the correlational analysis. Over-
all, Cc, ) appears to be a robust index of network centralization.
C&,,‘s local sensitivity seems reasonable: shifts are sufficiently large
so as not to confuse them with those generated by random variation,
yet they are not so large as to throw the entire system into disarray (it
passes the sow’s ear test). Configural sensitivity, although moderate, is
somewhat lower than for CL,,,. Ccc, is nearly as sensitive as C,, to
changes in network structure, and more sensitive than the other models.
Overall, C&,, is quite sensitive to change (both random and sys-
tematic) at the network’s periphery. Given the assumption that this is
where most change is likely to occur, and potentially where measure-
250 J A4 Bolland / The performance of four centrabty models

ment error is most likely, C&,, may be even more unstable than these
results indicate. If the network’s periphery is the focus of inquiry, then
C’cc,) may perform well, allowing the investigator to uncover subtle
aspects of centrality that other models may miss; otherwise, it may
distort interpretation of network structure. In general, Cc falls in the
middle of the four models with respect to most criteria. Therefore, it is
neither clearly good nor bad. This may be useful - and perhaps
accounts for its generally greater use as an intuitive model of centrality
_ for those who wish to avoid risk, but it also limits its usefulness for
those who wish to capture the full complexity of network structure.

Evaluation of CD

CL,, discriminates among vertices in the Chillicothe network. Its

resource decay function seems unreasonable, however, except for the
most restrictive of interpretations. In shows no particular merit in its
ability to identify central vertices in the Chillicothe network.
C’Wrj is moderately biased by random error under Assumption I,
much less so under Assumption II. Its variability is comparable to that
of CSy,, and C&,, under Assumption I, and much lower than those
models under Assumption II. Particularly under Assumption II, C&,,
is able to recover the structure of the unperturbed network, as reflected
by the correlational analysis. Like Cc,., , C, ) seems robust even under
considerable error.
Cd,, is locally sensitive, surpassed only by CL,,,. Yet, it passes the
sow’s ear test with flying colors. Coo is locally relatively insensitive,
and its configural sensitivity is low.
Overall, C, is a very conservative model. Like C&,,, C&,, falls in
the middle in terms of both robustness and sensitivity. Since it shows
no configural sensitivity, its behavior is quite predictable (and
mundane). It seems quite useful in its ability to simultaneously ignore
random variation while responding to systematic variation. But its
conceptual limitations and configural insensitivity may severely limit
its usefulness.

Evaluation of Cc,

C’cr(,) also differentiates well among the vertices of the Chillicothe

network. Its acknowledgment of non-geodesics is useful, but its lack of
 J.M. Bolland / The performance offourcenirahty models 251

a decay function seems potentially troublesome. Its ability to attribute

centrality to an individual who was soon to acquire a central position
in Chillicothe suggests that C&,, may be a useful predictor of change.
Finally, in Chillicothe, it attributed low centrality to individuals who
were “external” to the system under study.
Not only is C&r(,) relatively unbiased (particularly under Assump-
tion II), it shows relatively little variance in the face of random error.
As a result, C&,, calculated in the random variation condition is
highly correlated with the original data at all error levels. Ccr(., is
biased under Assumption I, however, potentially limiting its usefulness.
C’cF(,) is the least sensitive of the four models to systematic variation,
as is CcFo as an index of centralization. As an illustration, the
centrality of vertex #2 shows a much larger decline in the random
variation condition (Assumption I) than increase in the systematic
variation condition (where it is the target vertex). This difficulty is
particularly pronounced at the network’s center, where C&,) is least
sensitive, and least pronounced for the boundary spanner, where C&r(,)
is comparatively more sensitive. On the other hand, C&r(,) shows
reasonable configural sensitivity.
In spite of its insensitivity to systematic variation, particularly at the
network’s center, its other properties recommend Cc, as a useful
overall model of centrality, even at moderately high levels of expected
error.

A final note on the choice of centrahty models

Although the four models considered here portray centrality using

different theoretical constructs, they converge empirically. The high
intercorrelations among C&,,, C&,,, and C&r(,) reported for the Chilli-
cothe data suggest considerable redundancy. Ironically, this re-
dundancy mcreases with the introduction of random error into the
data, with correlations approaching 0.90 for all three models. The
introduction of random error thus seems to reduce the unique informa-
tion that each model may be able to provide. Even with the introduc-
tion of error into the Chillicothe data, however, C&,, remains compara-
tively uncorrelated with the other three models.
Thus, the choice among Cc, C,, and Cc, should not be based on
theoretical consideration alone, but also on the basis of their perfor-
mance. Both the centrality and the centralization results reported here
252 J M Bolland / The performance offourcentralrty models

suggest Cc, as the model of choice, as it outperforms its two major

competitors on most criteria. This suggests that modification in Ccr,
such as those developed by Mizruchi et al. (1986) and by Bonacich
(1987) are worth pursuing, but only so far as (a) they provide informa-
tion that C&,) does not, or (b) they provide the same information but
are more robust to random variation or more sensitive to systematic
variation.
Additionally, these results suggest C, as a useful companion to Cc,.
The assumptions underlying the two models are quite different: one is
based on the ability to facilitate network flow, while the other is based
on the ability to hinder flow. Empirically, they are the least correlated
of the models, and the strengths of each complement the weaknesses of
the other. Used together, they should yield a useful description of
network centrality.
Finally, the improved performance of all the models under Assump-
tion II in the random variation condition suggests the importance of
appropriate design in the study of social networks (e.g. Holland and
Leinhardt 1973). Specifically, research should be designed so that the
density of the network approximates the density of the system under
study. While this is obviously a difficult task, the discrepancy in
performance of the models under Assumption I and Assumption II
suggest that the benefit may be worth the effort.

References

Bavelas, A
1948 “A mathematical model for group structures ” Apphed Anthropology 7 16-30
Bolland, J.M.
1985 “Perceived leadership stahthty and the structure of urban agenda-settmg networks.”
Socral Nehvorks 7 153-172.
Bonactch, P.
1971 “Factoring and wetghtmg approaches to status scores and chque tdentrftcatton ” Journal
of Mathematrcal Sonologv 2 113- 120
1987 “Power and centrahty. a fannly of measures.” Amencan Journal of Socrology 92
1170-1182
Freeman, L C.
1979 “Centrality m networks I. conceptual clanfxatron ” Socral Network I 215-239
Harary , F , R.2 Norman and D. Cartwnght
1965 Structural Models. New York. Wiley.
Holland, P. and S. Lemhart
1973 “The structural rmphcatrons of measurement in soctometry.” Journal of Mathematical
Socmfogv 3. 85-112.
 J M Bollond / The performance of four centrolrty models 253

Laumann, E.O., P.V. Marsden and J Galasluewcz

1977 “Commumty-ehte mfluence structures: extension of a network approach.” Amerrcon
Journal of Socrology 83 594-631.
Laumann, E 0. and F.U. Pappl
1976 Networks of Collectrue Actron. New York: Acadenuc
M~zruclu, M.S., P. Mar~ohs, M. Schwartz and B. Mmtz
1986 “Techniques for disaggregatmg centrahty scores m a social network” Sonologrcof
Methodology 16 26-48