Abstract
The differences between direct ties (i.e., ties between a respondent and their nominees) and ties between nominees (indirect) are key to understanding network structure, yet remain understudied. Within a sample of 175 young men who have sex with men, we explored the corroboration of sex and drug ties, and factors associated with corroboration. The majority of instances in which there was no corroboration for either sex or drug ties was due to one individual not appearing in another respondent’s network. When an individual did appear in another respondent’s network, direct sex and drug ties were corroborated in most cases. We also found that more indirect sex ties were corroborated than direct sex ties (95.7% vs. 88.9%), but the reverse was true for indirect versus direct drug ties (73.1% vs. 84.1%). Strength of relationship and frequency of communication were both associated with confirmed direct ties, but not with indirect ties. Based on these findings, we recommend that direct and indirect ties be treated differently in network analyses.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.