Social Networks, 2 (1979/80) 119-141

@&evier
Sequoia S.A., Lausanne - Printed

119
in the Netherlands

Centrality in Social Networks:

II. Experimental Results*
Lin ton C. Freeman

University of California, Irvine*

Dougias Roeder

Stanford University ***

Robert

R. Mulholland

University of Culifornia, Irvine**

Three competing hypotheses about structural centrality are explored by

means of u rep&&ion of the curly MIT experiments on communication
structure and group ~rob~en~-soil~ing.It is showrl that ~~t~lo~~g~l
two of the
three kinds of measures of centrality have a demonstrable effect on individual responses and group processes, the classic measure of centrality based
on dist~nee is u~~re~~tedto any experime~lt~~ variuble. A sl~ggestio~l is ?nade
that the positive results provided by distunce-based centrality in curlier
experiments is un artifact of the particulur structures chosen for experimen tation.

Introduction
In a recent report, Freeman ( 1979) uncovered three intuitive conceptions
that have been used to try to capture the idea of structural ten trality in
social networks.
He refined these intuitions
and specified a family of
measures for each. One set of measures was based on the degree of a point
and seemed to be an index of that positions potential for activity in the
network. Another was based on the extent to which a point fell between
others on the shortest paths connecting them. It was taken to be an index
of potential for control of ~ommunicatio1~. And the third was based on the
closeness of a point to all others. This was viewed as a measure of either
independence
from control or of efficiency. Three measures were developed
for each of these structural properties. Two of each set of measures referred
*The authors wish to express their sincere gratitude
to Everett Rogers and Jack Ilunter
careful reading and helpful criticisms of an earlier draft of this manuscript.
**School of Social Sciences, University of California, Irvine, CA 92717, [J.S.A.
***Department
of Sociology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, U.S.A.

for their

120

I,. C. Freeman. 11. Roeder ad

R. R. hlulholland

to attributes of positions or points as they were embeclclccl in network structures: one was based on absolute counts ofdegrec, betweenncss or closeness
and the other was made relative by eliminating the eflect of network size.
The third measure in each case was an index of centralization
of the entire
structure.
It was designed to reflect the degree to which a network was
dominated by a single point, again in terms of deg-ee. betwccnness or closeness respectively.
According
to Freeman (1979) these kinds of centrality
imply three
competing theories of IIOW centrality might affect goup processes. Thus.
what is needecl now is an effort to sort out the effects of these several kinds
of centrality.
The most natural way to accomplish this is to return to the
classic experiment
that was designed in the late 1940s at the Massachusetts
Institute of Tectlnology.
It was dcvelopctl specifically to study the effects
of structural centrality on human communication.

The experimental

study of ten trality

The MIT experiment

as reported by Bavclas (1950), Smith (1950) and
Leavitt (195 1) is both simple and elegant. According to McWhinney ( 1964)
s~ich experiments
are simple enough to permit observation of group processes and effective use of analytic tools, but not so simple that they remove
the essence of group interaction.
A group of subjects is seated around a table that is partitioned
by large
opaque walls that isolate subjects from any visual or auditory contact with
one another.
Each subjject, however, is provided with one or more slots
through which he can pass and receive messages to and from designated
others. The independent
variable, then, is the pattern of permitted communication ~ the group structure.
Four structural
forms were studied. They are shown in Figure 1. Each
position or point was identified by a color, and each subject was provided
with a stack of blank message cards in his own designated color.
Figure 1

Structural formsusedirl the original MT experimen t.

.=;

;.
Chain
Y
Y

Star or

Wheel

Circle

Centrality in social networks

121

The experiment
itself consisted of a series of 15 problem-solving
trials.
On each trial each subject took up a card showing five symbols from a set of
six (0, *, +, u, a, 0). The subjects had only one symbol in common on a
given trial and their job was to discover that common symbol by passing
messages to one another. When a subject thought he had the correct answer
he so indicated by throwing a switch associated with that symbol. When all
subjects had thrown switches the trial was ended.
When the 15 trials were over each subject was asked to fill out a questionnaire containing a number of questions, three of which have turned out to
produce interesting results:
Yes _~~_ No ~~.
1. Did your group have a leader?
_ _ ~~~
~~___~
2. If so, who? (Identify by color)
3. How did you like your job in the group? (place a vertical slash along the
line below)
Liked
Disliked
It
It
I

_~.. ~~~~___

The information
provided by the questionnaire
along with data on the
efficiency
of the group in solving the problems constituted
the dependent
variables in the experiment.
Thus, the MIT experiment
was designed to
study the effects of the structure of communication
~~ or, specifically, the
centrality
of points in the communication
structure - on problem solving,
perception of leadership and personal satisfaction.
Results showed that all three dependent
variables were related to the
structure of communication.
Personal satisfaction and nomination for leadership, it turned out, were related to point centrality. Efficiency in problem
solving, group satisfaction
and the tendency to see leadership as operating
were related to overall centralization
of the network,
Results were impressive and they generated a good deal of derivative
work As Rogers and Agarwala-Rogers ( 1976, pp. 119--- 123) have observed,
Experimental
follow-up work was done by Heise and Miller (1951), Guetzkow (1951, 1954, 1960),
Christie, Lute and Macy (1952, 1956), Hirota (1953), DeSoto (1953), Rogge (1953), Macy, Christie
and Lute (1953),
Lute, Macy, Christie and Hay (1953), Shaw (1953, 1954a, 1954b, 1954c, 1955a,
1955b, 1956, 1958, 1959), Shelley (1953), Karaneff(1954),Walker
(1954),Christie
(1954a, 1954b),
Gilchrist,
Shaw and Walker (1954), Schein, White and Hill (1955), Goldberg (1955), Guetzkow
and
Simon (1955),
Mulder (1955,
1959a, 1959b,
1960a, 1960b), Berkowitz
(1956), l-lament (1956,
1958a, 1958b, 1961), Lanzetta and Roby (1956a, 1956b, 1957), Roby and Lanzetta (1956a, 1956b,
1957a,
1957b),
Shaw and Rothschild
(1956),
Trow (1957).
Guetzkow
and Dill (1957).
Shaw.
Rothschild
and Strickland
(1957). Shelley and Gilchrist (1958), Cohen, Bennis and Wolkon i1959a;
1959b, 1960, 1961, 1962), Faucheux
and Moscovici (1960). Mohanna and ArcVle (1960). Cohen and
Bennis (1960a,
1960b, 1961, 1962), Cohen, Bennis and Briggs (1960), Cohen (1961, 1462, 1964a,
1964b, 1964c, 1967), Sure, Rogers, Larson and Tassone (1962), Carzo (19631, Leavitt and Knight
(1963),
Lawson (1964a,
1964b, 1965), Morrisette,
Pearson and Switzer (1965), Morrisette,
Switzer
and Cranncl (1965),
Watson and Bromberg
(1965),
Faucheux
and Mackenzie
(1966), Morrisette
(1966), Burgess (1968a,
1968b, 1968c, 1968d, 1969), Cohen and I.oerst (1968), Harshberger
(1971),
Cohen, Rosmer and Foerst (1973), Snadowski (1974), Liddell and Slocum (1976).

122

I,. C. Freenm,

Il. Roeder

am1 R. R. ~IfdholLmd

however, interest peaked in the 1950s and 1960s and has declined recently.
The reasons for this decline are not entirely clear, but we can make some
guesses about at least some of the factors involved.
Since the early fifties there has been a growing divergence between theoretical and experimental
work in this area. The early experimental
studies were
concerned
with the effects of structural
centrality
on communication
in
small groups. Exactly what centrality was, as Freeman (1979) showed. was
not entirely clear. But at least these investigators were concerned both with
specifying a potentially
relevant structural attribute of networks and with
determining its cffccts.
After these first studies, however, subsequent investigators tended to LX
concerned either with conceptual problems of centrality or with the consequences of structure on prohlcm solving, not both. Some investigators, like
Beauchamp
(1965) and Sabidussi ( 1966) were concerned very little with
experimental
results. They rcturnetl to graph tlleory and redefined centrality
in mathematically
sophisticated (but empirically inappropriate)
ways. Others,
like I-leise and Miller ( 195 1) and Lawson ( 1965) dropped the notion of centrality entirely and concentrated
on studyin g the unspecified at tribu tcs of
structure on problem solving. They looked simply for differences in perforniancc aniong tile standard named structural forms, like the wheel or the
circle. Tlicir reports reflect a sort of blind empiricism. They show that the
wheel is. say, faster than tlic circle in solving problems of a given class, but
make no attempt to uncover what it is about these forms that might lead to
this result.
A second difficulty with the later cxpcrimcntal
work is
in part at least
- a consequence
of this same blind concern with standard structures. In the
early MIT studies Bavelas and Leavitt made some attempt to sort out positional effects from overall structural effects. Positional effects could be seen
when the value taken by the dependence
variable could IX predicted from
the centrality ofa point regardless of the structure in which it was eniL~etldccl.
Overall structural effects. on the other Iiand. were observable when the value
of the dependent variable could be predicted from the centralization
of the
structure itself regardless of individual point centralitios within the structure.
the later studies lost
By concentrating
entirely on structural
differences,
sight of the sort of subtle complexity
inipliccl by a concern with both positional and overall structure effects and their possible interaction.
These problems led to an emerging consensus that this kind of experiment
had hit an intellectual dead end. Burgess (1968b) summarized this view when
he concluded
that the results were contradictory
as well as inconclusive.
He reasoned, and demonstrated
empirically,
that if subjects were run long
enough (900+ trials). and rewarded for speed and efficiency. all previously
dcnionstratccl differences in performance
would disappear.
Burgesss conclusion
is probably correct. hut it has little to do with the
importance of tile Bavclas-type experiment. Obviously learning takes place in
the experiment.
and cclually obviously ii pushed hard cnou:gh and long
enough suL>jects will find tlic organization
structlire that provides an opti-

Centrality in social networks

123

mum solution. Nevertheless, in seeking this solution, subjects will use strategies that reflect the influence of structural factors. As Guetkow and Simon
(1955) and Guetzkow
and Dill (1957) have suggested this is probably due
to the fact that participants must solve two problems: (1) that of developing
an organizational scheme suitable for finding the common symbol within the
constraints of their particular network form and (2) that of actually finding
the common symbol. Unless subjects are beaten to death with a seemingly
endless string of experimental
trials they are likely to behave in a way that
parallels their real-life communications.
They will seek and find an organizational form that works, and then play with variations on it both to maintain interest and to seek a better form.
All this, of course, must be accomplished within the structural constraints
of the communication
network. And the major structural constraints of
interest in this context are those having to do with centrality and centralization. Any or all combinations
of three kinds of centrality might be appropriate to a given application,
either at a point level or at the level of the
analysis of overall structural properties.
Existing data, however, provide no basis for sorting out the effects of
various kinds of centrality
on communication
processes in small groups.
The particular structural forms used in the MIT experiments
and by subsequent investigators are all ranked in the same order by all three measures of
centralization
(see Table 1). Thus, it is impossible to make a decision about
the kind of centralization
involved in affecting results on the basis of
existing data.
Table 1.

Centralization index scores and ranks for the structures studied by Leavitt.

Form

Star or Wheel
Y
Chain
Circle

Control

Independence

CB

Rank

1
0.71
0.41
0

1
2
3
4

Activity

cc

Rank

CC

Rank

1
0.63
0.43
0

I
2
3
4

1
0.58
0.17
0

1
2
3
4

It is, however, possible to choose other structural

forms that are ranked in
differing orders by the three measures. Such choice permits a critical test
among the three centrality
concepts. That is the purpose of the empirical
test used here. This test was designed in an attempt to determine the degree
to which the results of an MIT-type experiment
could be associated with
centrality in terms of control, independence
or activity.

A critical test
The experiment
reported here was designed to determine which, if any, of
the three kinds of structural centrality specified by Freeman (1979) was

124

L. C. Freeman, D. Roeder and R. R. Mulholland

relevant to small group problem solving. Except for the use of new structural
forms and some female subjects, this experiment
is an exact replication 01
the one reported by Leavitt (195 1).
Like Leavitt, we used four structural forms, each containing five positions.
And, as in the Leavitt experiment, each form was replicated with five sets of
subjects. The forms used here are shown in Figure 2. The overall centralization scores and their rankings for these structures are shown in Table 2. The
point centrality
scores for these structures
are shown in Table 3. These
rankings and scores are used to forecast possible outcomes, by form and by
position, of the experimental
trials.
Figure 2.

Structural forms used in the current experiment (positions are identijied

with colors.. R-red, Y-yellow, W--white, B-blue, and G-green).

Subjects were 100 volunteers from among the student body at Lehigh
51 were
University.
They ranged from freshmen
to graduate students;
male and 49 were female. None had previously participated
in a group
problem-solving
experiment.
The first question addressed in analyzing our results involved evaluating
the success of this experiment as a replication of Leavitts study. In choosing
structural
forms, we had purposely
picked one, our Form A, that was
identical with one of Leavitts forms, the chain. This choice, it was reasoned,
Table 2.

Centralization
Figure 2.

index

scores and ranks ftir the structural forms

Independence

Control

shown

in

Activity

CB

Rank

(c!

klllk

(D

killk

0.41

0.43

0.17

0.56

0.55

0.42

0.29

0.62

0.50

0.14

0.23

0.25

Centrality in social networks

Table 3.

125

Point centrality index scores for positions in the structural forms shown in
Figure 2.
Point
Centrality
Index

Form

CB

Position
R

A
13
C
D

4
4
2
1.5

3
0
0.5
1.5

3
3
0.5
0.5

0
0
0
0

0
0
0
0.5

CD

A
B
C
D

2
3
4
3

2
2
3
3

2
2
3
2

1
2
2
2

1
1
2
2

C,

A
B
C
D

6
5
4
5

1
I
5
5

I
6
5
6

10
I
6
6

10
9
6
6

would allow us to evaluate the degree to which our results were comparable
with those produced by Leavitt.
Comparative
results for six key variables are shown in Table 4. No one
difference
is especially large - particularly
in view of the relatively small
samples used. The interesting result, however, is the fact that our subjects
performed better with respect to every single variable. They used less time,
sent fewer messages, made fewer errors, and in general, were more satisfied
with the task.
Table 4.

Comparison on key variables for Form A, the Chain, between Leavitts data
and data from the current study.

Variable

MIT ca. 1949

Lehigh

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

77.1
53.2
14.8
1.8
60

63.4
48.4
13.2
1.6
65.2

78
76
34

92
82
30

Time (in seconds per trial) (trials 10-15)

Fastest correct trial (in seconds)
Number of messages per trial (trials 10-15)
Number of trials with at least one error per group
Satisfaction
scores
Satisfaction
scores by position
Center
Intermediate
End

1916

It is difficult to explain the consistent pattern of these differences.

It
might simply be due to sampling variation. Or it might result from a
change in the attitudes or skills of students in general over almost 30 years,
to an institutional
difference between MIT and Lehigh, or to our use of
female subjects and (one would assume) a greater proportion
of nonengineering students. There is no way to determine the bases for these differences from available data. Instead. we must be content that the differences

126

I,. C. Freeman.

D. Roeder and R. R. Mulhollarzd

are rather small and that the results of our replication are reasonably close to
those produced by the original experiment.
The main analyses of the data of the present experiment
were made in
terms of three classes of dependent variables: (1) leadership, (3) satisfaction
and (3) efficiency. These will be examined, in turn, below.
Concern with leadership was embodied
in two questions in the postoxpcrimental questionnaire.
These questions were used to determine whether
or not subjects perceived their group as liavin g a leader and whether they
could identify that leader. If 3 subject identified the occupant of a dcsignated position 3s the leader for his or Iier goup that was counted as an
instance of perceived leadership and tabulated for the position chosen. These
results were recorded
for positions in each of the four structural forms.
Results are shown in Table 5.
Table 5.

Number
I~orm

of times each position was idrnt$ied

as a leader fly structural jbrnz.

Posit ion
K cd

Yellow

1
3

CVhite

IIIUC

Green

3
1%

3
3

3
3
(

4
I
5
3
D

4
2

I
I
3
2

Red was the most central position in forms A, U and C and red and
yellow shared dominance
in form D. Table 5 shows that most participants
who chose a leader picked the most central point. Moreover, the overall
number of leadership choices made as well as the number of non-central
choices varied by structural form, but only slightly. The analysis of variance
of average number of leadership choices per trial by structural form is shown
in Table 6. The differences, it seems, arc far from significant.
The means of leader identification
are, however, in exactly the order predicted by tile control-based
mcasurc of centrali:<ation, C, Thus, though the

Centrality in social networks

Table 6.

Analysis of variance of average number

127

of leadership nominations per trial

and position by structural forms.

Form

xx

A
B
c
D

17
18
16
14
65
65*/100

XX2
5.5
62
56
36

25
25
25
25
100

(2X)*/N

11.56
12.96
10.24
7.84

0.68
0.72
0.64
0.56

209

42.60

= 42.25

TSS = 209 ~ 42.25 = 166.75

BSS = 42.6 - 42.25 = 0.35
WSS = 166.75 ~ 0.35 = 166.4

Table 7.

SOUICC

ss

df

MS

Between Means
Within Groups

0.35
166.4

3
96

0.117
1.731

0.067

_____

-.~

Analysis of variance of number of leadership nominations per trial by

betweenness-based point centrality score.
c',(Pk)

cx

4
3
2
1.5
0.5
0

32
1
13
11
5
3

10
15
5
10
20
40

65

100

XX2

(~X)*/N

114
1
51
31
9
3

102.4
0.067
33.8
12.1
1.25
0.225

3.2
0.067
2.6
1.1
0.25
0.075

209

149.842

65*/100 = 42.25
TSS = 209 ~ 42.25 = 166.75
BSS= 149.842 ~ 42.25 = 107.592
WSS = 166.75 ~ 107.592 = 59.159

Between means
Within groups
**Significant

107.592
59.159

5
94

21.52
0.629

34.21

at 01= 0.01.

differences
are small, their order suggests that they may be associated with
betweenness.
This conclusion
is supported,
in part, by the analyses of variance of
leadership choices by point centrality
scores shown in Tables 7, 8 and 9.
Here, means are calculated for individual point centrality scores regardless
of the form in which they are embedded. All three point centrality measures
yield significant Fs, but the residual variance produced
by the partition
based on the betweenness
measure is less than half of that shown by the

128

I,. C Freeman,

Table 8.

D. Koeder

and

R. R. Mztiholland

Analysis of variance of number c?fleadership nominations

based point centrality score.

4
3
2

13
30
21

5
2s
55
10

51
97
60

33.8
36.0
8.018
0.067

100

209

77.885

1
65

per trial by degree-

2.6
1.2
0.38
0. I

6S2/l 00 = 42.25
TSS = 209
42.25 = 166.75
BSS = 77.885 ~ 42.25 = 35.635
WAS= 166.75
35.635 = 131.1 I5
SOUK~

ss

d!~

MS

f,

13ctween
means

35.635
131.115

3
96

11.88
1.366

8.70**

Within groups
*Si-nilicant
c

Table 9.

at a = 0.01

Analysis of variance of number of leadership nominations

Iless-based point centrality score.
+(/k)-

xx

4
s
6
7
Y
10

13
30
19
2
0

5
25
35
20
5

51
97
5x
2
0

10

65

100

2x2

(cX)/N

33.8
36.0
IO.314
0.2
0

2.6

0.1

209

80.414

per trial by close-

I .I
0.54
0.1
0
0.1

65/100
= 42.25
TSS = 209
42.25 = 166.75
BSS = 77.885 ~ 42.25 = 38.164
WSS= 166.75
38.164 = 128.58
SULUCC

SS

dl

AIS

I<

Iktween means
Within groups

3X.164
128.58

S
94

7.6328
1.368

5.58*

*Significant

31 a y 0.01.

others. Betweenness,
then, seems to be the point centrality
measure of
choice when it comes to understanding
leadership nominations.
There is a problem, however, in considering
the relationship
between
point centralities
based on betweenness
and nominations
for leadership.
Their relationship
is not strictly monotone; points with a betweenness index
of 3 arc actually lowest in receiving leadership choices. inspection
of the
means
suggests that the really important partition is neither by forms nor by
point centralitics
but by the most central point (in terms of betweenncss)

Centrality in social networks

in each form versus all other

nominations
by this partition
significant.
Table 10.

129

points. The analysis of variance of leadership

is shown in Table 10. Clearly the results are

Analysis of variance of number of leadership nominations per trial by central

position versus all other
___CX

Partition
Betweenness
Others

Center

CX2

(xX)2/N

x
2.24
0.12

56
9

25
15

196
13

125.44
1.08

65

100

209

126.52

652/100 = 42.25
TSS = 209 -- 42.25 = 166.75
BSS = 126.52 - 42.25 = 84.21
WSS = 166.75 - 84.27 = 82.48
Source

ss

df

MS

Between means
Within groups

84.27
82.48

1
98

84.27
0.842

100.08**

**Significant

at 01= 0.01.

Betweenness, then, seems to be the key to understanding

choice as leader.
Since it is based on potential for control of communication,
this outcome
makes good intuitive sense; it is reassuring to find that perceived leadership
is related to what we have called control potential.
Satisfaction
was recorded by having subjects place a check mark along a
line. It was scaled by measuring the distance from the zero point to the
check and converting
to a base of 10. Satisfaction
ratings are shown in
Table 1 1.
Again, analysis of variance of satisfaction scores by structural form shows
that differences
in structural forms are not significant (F = 0.28 with df =
3, 96). And again, as Table 12 shows, F-tests of point centralities are all significant with the betweenness-based
measure yielding the smallest residuals.
In the case of satisfaction,
examination
of the means suggests that differences are not simply a matter of whether points are dominant in betweenness or not. Instead the satisfaction
of the occupant of a point seems to
depend on a combination
of betweenness
and degree. Participants
whose
degree is less than two are connected to only one other person; they report
feeling powerless and more or less isolated; they are dissatisfied. Those who
are connected
to two or more others are more likely to be satisfied. If,
however, they are connected to at least two others and also have a necessary
role in passing messages (betweenness
greater than or equal to 1) they seem
quite satisfied indeed.
This suggests that ~ regardless of form -- there are three classes of subjects with respect to satisfaction.
Results using this partition are shown in
Table 13. They show a reduction in residual variance and suggest that this

130

L. C. Freenlan, 1). Roeder and R. R. iZlulho16and

Table 1 I .

Satisfktion

<

scores by structural fbrnr and position

IO
9
8

10
x

9
9

9
9
x

IO
I0
7
IO

8
5
9
3

7
I
IO
5

7
x
I
6
IO

I0
3
X
I
7

3
2
5
3
0
4
2
0
9
8

I0
8
9
9
I)

Table 12.

8
8

IO
IO
x

I0
9
0

Y
I

3
2

I0

x
I0

9
I0

5
6

-4 naZyses ofvariarzce ojsatisfaction

?;x*

(LY)*/N

I0
I5
IO5

858
1048
756 I
35

X46.4
1025.1
612.4
336.2

114
152

20
40

194
898

649.X
571.6

605

I 00

4705

cB(/k)

22

3
,
;.5

92
I24
41
82

0.5
0

:V

by three point-centrality

x
9.2
X.27
x.2
X.2
5.7
3.x

4107.5

605*/l
00 = 3660.25
TSS = 4705
3660.25
= 1044.75
RSS = 4107.5
~- 3660.25
= 441.25
IISS = 1044.75
447.25
= 597.5
2

41
I95
324
45
605
RSS
Itss

.y

5
25
55
IS
IO0
= 3900.85
= 1044.75

xu2

( xx)2/N

A-

351
1707
2404
243

336.2
1521.0
1908.65
135.0

8.2

4705

3900.85

3660.25
= 240.6
240.6 = 804. I 5

7.x
5 .Y
3.0

measures

Centrality in social networks

13 1

Table 12. (Continued)

Cc(pk)-

XX

4
5
6
I
9
10

41
195
188
136
15
30
605

N
5
25
35
20
5
10
100

Means
Within
Means
Within
Means
Within

on CB~&)
Groups
on CD&)
Groups
on C&k)
Groups

**Significant

Table 13.

(xf12IN

351
1717
1322
1082
95
148

336.2
1521.0
1009.83
924.8
45.0
90.0

8.2
7.8
5.31
6.8
3.0
3.0

4705

3926.83

3660.25 = 266.58
266.58 = 778.17

BSS = 3926.83
WSS = 1044.75
Source

XX2

ss

df

MS

477.25
597.5
240.6
804.15
266.58
778.17

5
94
3
96
5
94

89.45
6.36
80.2
8.38
53.32
8.28

14.06**
9.57**
6.44**

at (Y= 0.01.

Analysis of variance of satisfaction by a three class partition of positions.

Partition
C&$k)
C&k)

> 2, C&k)
a 2, C&k)

cD@k)

< 2

> 1
< 1

339
221
45

40
45
15

3013
1449
243

2873.0
1085.3
135.0

100

4705

4093.3

8.47
4.9 1
3.0

605/100
= 3660.25
TSS = 4705 ~ 3660.25 = 1044.75
BSS = 4093.3 ~ 3660.25 = 433.05
WSS= 1044.75 ~~433.05 = 611.7
Source
Between
Error

subgroups

**Significant

ss

df

MS

433.05
611.7

2
97

216.525
6.31

34.31**

at (Y= 0.0 1.

three-way partition may indeed be a relevant determinant

of satisfaction for
participants.
Participants
require some connection
with more than one
other to be satisfied at all, but real satisfaction requires some betweenness.
The problem of efficiency is a bit more complicated. Traditionally,
there
are three measures of efficiency:
(1) the number of errors, (2) speed per
trial, and (3) the number of messages sent. These will be examined in turn.
An error was tabulated whenever a subject had selected the wrong symbol
when a trial had ended. Data on errors by position, structural form and
experimental group are shown in Table 14.

132

I,. C. Freerna~l, II. Roeder and R. R. i2lulkdland

Table 14.

Errors in 15 trials by position ad

K
A

I>

stntchlral jbrtn.

I3

(;
0

I
0
I
(I
0
0
0
0

I
0
1

I
0
?.

I
0
I

I
0
3

0
0
I
0
0

0
0
0
0
1

0
0
1
0
0

0
0
0
0
I

1
0
0
0
1
I
0
Cl
2
0

0
0
I
0
0

0
0
I
0
2

0
0
I
0
(1

0
0
2
0
I

0
0
0
2
0

0
0
0
I
I

I
0
(1
I
0

0
0
0
0
7

It is difficult to draw conclusions from the data in Table 14. It is obvious

that form A, the chain, generates far more errors than the others, but
beyond that, no pattern emerges. For forms, I+= 7.48 with (/I= 3 and 96
which is significant at OL= 0.01, this seems almost entirely the result of the
high error rate of form A.
It might be noted in this context that most of the errors produced by
form A arc of a different kind than those generated in other forms. Form As
errors are ~~ 30 of 33 cases ~ shared by all subjects for a given trial. All
subjects agreed on the wrong answer. Other errors are individual or shared
at most by one or two people. As a matter of fact, when consensual errors
are dropped out, I. is 110 longer significant.
generates two kinds of errors:
All this suggests that this experiment
( 1) seemingly random individual mistakes and (2) systematic and COIISCIISLI~
incorrect responses. The second type of error is found only among participants using form A. The most likely explanation of this phenomenon
is that
in form A there are no cycles and no redundant paths connecting pairs of
points. There is, therefore, less opportunity
for checking answers.
If a mistake is made everyone is stuck with it. This notion is supported
by the fact that, as we shall report below, form A participants used far fewer
messages in solving problems than did those from any other structure.
It
would seem, then, that systematic
errors result from a structure
to the
degree that it inhibits the checking of answers.
Time data were collected for each trial. The range of variation in solution
times
CVLII replications
of a single participating group
is far greater than

Centrality in social nehvorks

133

that for any other dependent

variable in this experiment.
A number of
partitions were tried, but the error variance for each was so large and mean
differences were so small that any conclusion from these data was impossible. Interpretation
of time data awaits further study with considerably
larger samples and, hopefully, detailed records of times involved in the subprocesses that make up the solution.
The most natural way to check efficiency in terms of message flow is to
total the number of messages sent. In what is essentially a learning experiment, however, early trials involve huge numbers of messages as compared
with later trials. Later trials are nearly stable and give a better indication of
the more-or-less steady state of communication.
For purposes of the present
analysis, then, message data were recorded only for trials 10 to 15 where
communication
frequencies had settled down to a fairly stable pattern. In
addition, the small proportion of messages that were irrelevant to the experiment - What are you doing this weekend? - were also eliminated from
the analysis.
Data on overall communication
by position and form are shown in Table
15. It is clear that there are massive differences both between structural
forms and between positions in forms.
Table 15.

Number of messages sent in trials lo-15

Form

by position and structural form

Position
R

33
12
13
13
22

26
12
12
12
19

25
12
12
15
20

8
6
11
6
6

6
6
6
7
10

55
27
18
32
26

41
26
18
32
18

22
29
12
17
12

30
13
15
40
28

I
12
6
6
6

29
29
33
25
41

56
27
28
20
40

47
20
29
17
35

20
12
25
11
23

29
30
26
18
34

36
37
31
40
34

44
28
17
44
43

25
18
19
29
33

15
22
14
30
36

21
23
24
33
28

The results of the F-test for structural

forms are shown in Table 16.
These results do not order the structural forms according to any of the
measures of centrality.
Instead the forms are ordered in terms of their
density. This suggests that communication
is simply a function
of the

134
Table

L. C. Freeman,
16.

L). Roeder and R. R. Mulholkznd.

Means, variances and analysis of variance of messages sent in trials 1 O-1

bv

structural form

Table

17.

l~Orlll

7
x

A
Px
(
1)

21.9
2x.14
29.22

50.24
147.03
103.25
76.32

Source

ss

d/

!W

1..

Ilcan? on torms
Within tirrnls

4055.36
9421.2

3
96

1351.79
98.14

13.77

13.2

s*

Means, variances and analysis of variance of messages sent in trials lo-15

bv

degree-based poin t centralities

C&k)

s2

4
3
2
1

31.40
33.24
22.09
7.27

29.44
117.78
65.35
3.93

Source

ss

dl

MS

I.

Means of CD(&)
Nithin groups

6731.76
6744.8

3
96

2243.92
70.26

31.93**

**Significant

at a = 0.01.

number of different others with whom each participant leas the opportunity
to communicate.
This interpretation
is supported
by the positional
analysis shown in
Table 17. Except for the reversal of means at degrees 4 and 3, these results
suggest that communication
activity is strongly a function of degree for
points. Moreover, this reversal seems to be the result of one very confused
trial where the information
was finally organized by a person in a non-central
position.
Overall communication
seems to depend simply on the number of tiifferent people with which each subject has the opportunity
to communicate.
It is possible, however, to break down
various kinds of communication
to
see if we can learn any more about how this process works. Message data
were, thercforc, broken down into four categories:
(1 ) organizational
suggestions.
(2) requests for information,
(3) information (but not answers). and
(4) answers.

Centrality in social networks

13.5

For the most part, organizational suggestions had dropped out by trial 10.
But the few that were made occurred more frequently in forms with more
edges. The same is true for answers and for messages containing non-answer
information.
Only requests for information
depart slightly from this order.
In that category, form C (with fewer edges) involved slightly more messages
than form D (with more). This probably simply reflects the unresolved
competition
for the job of pooling information
between the two equally
central points in form C. But overall, each of the message categories displays
the same relationship to structural form as that shown by the total number
of messages.
When types of messages are analysed in terms of positions within forms,
the presence of communication
roles is suggested. The data are shown in
Table 18.
Table 18.

Means of number of messages sent by message type and form for trials 10
15.

Form

Structural

Answers

Information

Information
requests

Organizational
suggestions

Center
Midpoint
Endpoint

12.4**
6.2**
0**

5.8
10.9
7.2

0.4
0
0

0
0
0

Center
Midpoint
Endpoint

14.8**
5.61**
0**

14.2
17.0
7.2

2.6
0.8
0.2

Center
Midpoint

15.2**
4.95**

15.4
19.25

3.2
2.6

0
0.05

Center
Midpoint

11.4**
4.87**

21.0
18.27

2.8
1.73

0.1
0.27

**Es on these differences

role

are significant

0.07
0

at Q= 0.01

Messages containing
answers clearly specify positional
roles. All differences are significant. The most central point always passes more answers
than any other point. Endpoints - points that are connected to only one
other - do not pass messages. And others pass an intermediate
number.
It should be noted that centers here are specified in terms of betweenness. If degree is used, the systematic differences exhibited in form A disappear since the center and the two midpoints
all have degrees of two.
Informational
messages do not generate significant differences, but their
means are, for the most part, in a predictable order. Center points pass less
information
than mid points (except for form D where confusion seems
consistently
to reign). Centers, it seems, are collectors,
not passers, of
information.
And, of course, endpoints
pass minimal information
along
the one channel available to them.
Differences
are small and non-significant
for the other two message
types. But again their order is reasonable. Centers request information
in

136

L. C Freeman,

D. Roeder and R. R. Mulholland

order to solve the problem. And midpoints make the most organizational
suggestions
presumably because of their ambiguous positions.
All this suggests that people find their place in this experiment according
to their structural position. Clearly, there are effects of forms themselves,
but there are also internal positional effects that govern communication.
This result is, again, intuitively plausible and helps to clarify the results of
the MIT experiment.
It completes our analysis of the experimental data and
helps to fill in the picture of the relationship between communication
structure and group performance.
Overall, the analysis of experimental
results shows that centrality
is an
important
but not the only ~ structural factor influencing leadership,
satisfaction
and efficiency in small groups. Another structural factor ~~ the
overall density of edges in the structural
form
also turned out to be
relevant.
With respect to the three concepts of structural centrality,
the experimental results were interesting. Both the control based measure of betweenness
and the activity based measure of degree turned out to be important in
understanding
group performance.
But at no point was the independence
index (traditionally
most commonly ~lsed) based on closeness even vaguely
related to experimental
results. It would seem that the closeness-based
measure held up in the earlier experiments
only because in the particular
forms studied it yielded the same predictions of order as the other measures:
its apparent utility was simply an artifact of the forms chosen for study.
Perhaps a good deal of the historical confusion surrounding the results of
this experiment
have been the result of using an inappropriate
index of the
main structural dimension.

Summary

and conclusions

This essay has been concerned with structural centrality. We have raised
and attempted
at least preliminary
solutions to the problem of, not what
centrality is, but what centrality does.
The three measures of overall network centrality introduced
by Freeman
( 1979) agree on assignment of extremes.
They all assign the star or wheel
the maximum centrality
score and the circle and the complete graph the
minimum score. Between these extremes, however, agreement breaks down;
they differ in their relative ranking of intermediate
fonns.
These differences,
it turns out, allow a re-examination
of the classic MIT
experiment
on
small-group
structure
and communication.
The standard
structural
forms, wheel, Y, chain and circle, could not be used since they
were all ranked in the same order by all three measures. But alternatives were
specified and a replication
of the earliest experiment was conducted using
these new structural forms.
Centrality
did emerge as an important
structural variable, but not the
traditional kind of centrality based on closeness. Instead, the experimentally

Centrality in social networks

137

important kinds of centrality were those based on potentials for activity and
for control.
What, then, does this all come down to? Where does the current report fit
into an ongoing research process?
Hopefully,
this work has the potential for breathing new life into the
classic Bavelas experiment.
Recent reviewers have suggested this experiment
is an intellectual dead end. At this point, however, it would seem that many
of the contradictory
results generated by earlier investigators were the result
of fuzzy structural concepts along with a tendency to design and analyze
experiments
in such a way that they succeed only in masking structural
effects. Here we have demonstrated
that structural effects are present and present in intuitively plausible ways.
However, like research in any ongoing field, the current work raises many
questions for further study. Perhaps the most important single question involves the stability of the reported results. How well would they stand up to
replication?
Before we can realistically begin to vary the kinds and difficulties of problems to be solved, or other fundamental
components
of the
design, we must develop some reliable estimates of experimental
parameters.
A related question involves the portability
of the general findings of this
study to other applications.
How far can the observed relationship
be
generalized? In this context we need to explore variations on the experimental design as well as the possibilities of studying the implications
of the
various kinds of centrality
in other settings including naturally occurring
human social networks.
The problem of how to predict trial times was not solved in the current
experiment.
We were left with the impression that the variance in times was
too great for the current exceedingly
small samples. Further study, using
large samples, is needed to evaluate this impression.
We were able to observe - at least indirectly ~- the emergence of the role
of problem solver who pooled information
in the current experiment.
Although it was clear that information-pooling
became the task of the most
central position, it was not possible to determine what kind of centrality
was operating in role assignment. We are left with a question as to whether
information-pooling
roles are assigned to positions that are central in terms
of control or activity. This is a problem for subsequent study.
And finally, along with replications, extensions and parameter estimates
based upon the concepts and experiments reported here, the next theoretical
problem must be specified and solved. As results become more reliable and
detailed it will be possible to build a process model of this kind of communication. Only then will we be able really to untangle the impact of structural
centrality on communication
networks.
References
Bavelas, A.
1950
Communication
patterns
America 22: 21 I~-282.

in task oriented

groups.

Journal

of the Acoustical

Society

of

138

L. C. Freertm, D. Roeder and R. R. Mullzollut~d

Beauchamp,
1965
ljcrkowitz,
1956
I3urgess, R.
1968a
196%
1968~
1968d
1969

(arzo, R.
1963

M, A.
An improved index ofccntrality.
Rehavioral
Scierrcc IO: I61 163.
L.
Personality
and group position. Socionlet~r19: 2 1n 222.
L.
(ommunication
networks,
behavioral
consequences
and group learning.
Ilnpuhlished
Phi> dissertation.
St. Louis: Washin$on
University.
.loumal
of E.~pcrimrtltal
Communication
networks:
an csperimental
reevaluation.
Social Psycflolog~
4: 324 3 37.
within restricted
nctAn experimental
and mathematical
analysis [lt group behavior
works..loirwlal
~~~~,~spcritnc~ntal Social t:rychology
3: 3 3X 349.
ffutrlau Relations -72: I31 I SO.
Communication
nctworksand
behavioral consequences.
((,tnmunicntion
networks:
an empirical
reevaluation.
Chapter 6 in Isurgcss, 1~. I.. and
L) Bushnell,
Jr ., Befmvioral
Sociology:
Tfle IYxperitnental
Anal_vsis of Social froccss.
(olumhia University Press. New York: 127 142.
Some

effects

QuarterfJ

(hristic, 1. S.
Organization
I954n
Rrscarcfl

of organization

7: 393

and

Society

structure

on group

etfectiveness.

Adrnbristrative

Sc,i?/rc,c,

424.

intormation

o~America

handling
in task groups.
196.
processing.
Navy systems
Medford, Mass.

.lourrral

of tfw

Operotiorrs

,7: 188

Organization
and inti)rmation
analysis project
report No.
1954-494-03-25.
Tufts College,
Christie, L. S., R. Lute and J. hlacy
Communications
and learning in task oriented groups. Tccfltzical Report No. 231. Corn1952
hridce, Mass: Research Lab. otI_lcctronics.
groups.
In J. 1;. McCl~lskey and .I. hl. (oppingcr
Information
handling
in organized
1956
(eds). Operations
Rescarctr fbr Mauac~enletzt
Vol. II: (bsc Ihistories, Mctfwds,
Ir!fixwratiorl
ffaa,xfli/z,y. Baltimore:
Johns Ffopkinq Press: 4 17 537.
Cohen, A. .%I.
~mull group
comrnunicatior~
network<.
Jorrrrlal
of Cilrlzrtlzciiicati(~trs
I I:
Yhanging
1961
19541)

116
I962

124,

(lianping

128.

small group

communication

networks.

Adtnirzi~tratiw

Sciolc,e

Quartcrl~~

443 -463.

1964a
I964b.
1964~

lrcdicting
organization
in changed networks
II. Jourmf
of fs~~cirolog~ 57: 475 499.
Predicting
organization
in changed networks
III. Jourilal ofIs~~c~/~olo~.r~ 38: I1 5 129.
Pmw~uwl
Alrr~itzist~atior~
I? 7. 18
(onilnunicntion
networks
in research and training.
24.

1967

Cohen, A.
196Oa
1960b

1961
1962

Cohen, A.
1960

Cohen, A.
1959a
1959h
1960

A model ot group adaptation

to organizational
change in communication
networks.
In I,. 0. Thayer (ed) Cb,llmlc,2ic,atio~z~ Thcnr.~~ ard Rescarclr. Springfield,
Ill. : (harles
c. Thomas, pp. 28 74.
II. and W. C;. Bcnnis
The eftccts of an elective situation
on continuity
of leadership
under conditions
of
change in work structure.
Technical Report, Boston University Human Relations Center.
A model predicting
the influence of previous experience
on the communication
systems
Technical
Report,
Hoston University
Human
established
by problem-solving
groups.
Relation3 Center.
Id: 35 I 367.
Continuity
of leadership
in communication
networks. Ilfrrrlatr Relatiorls
lrcdicting
organization
in changed communication
networks.
.lorrr!raf o./ P.~,~~cfrok%,v
54: 391 416.
hl., W. G. Hcnnis and II. Briggs
A partial test of a model predicting
the influence of previous cxpericnce
on the comnlt~crroups. Technical
Report, Boston Ilninication
systems cstablishcd
by problem-solving
~~
versity Human Relations Ccntcr.
M., W. G. Bennis and G. H. Wolkon
The cffcctg of continued practice on the behavior\ of In~bletll-~olvirl~ group<. fcchnical
Report, Boston Ilnivcrsity
Iluman Relations Ccntcr.
The ctfccth of changes in communication
patterns on the bchaviour\
of prol)lclll-s[)ivln~
group<. Technical Report, Bocton Ilniversity Ifuman Rclationu Ccntcr.
The cllctx of position change\ in col~~rnunication
patterns on the Ixhaviors ot~pr~l~lcrnsolving
group\.
Technical Report. lio\ton Univcr\ity
Ifuman Relations Center.

Centrality in social networks

139

The effects of continued

practice on the behaviors of problem-solving
groups. Sociomctry24:416
-437.
The effects of changes in communication
networks on the behavior of problem-solving
1962
groups.Sociometry
25: 177Vl96.
Cohen, A. M. and J. R. Foerst
Organizational
behavior
and adaptations
to organizational
change of sensitizer
and
1968
repressor problem-solving
groups. Journal ofPersonality
and Social Psychology 8: 209
216.
Cohen, A. M., P. E. Rosner and J. R. Focrst
Leadership
continuity
in problem-solving
groups: an interactional
study. Human Rrla1973
tions. 26: 753-114.
Cohn, B. S. and M. Marriot
Networks
and centrcs in thcintegrationof
Indian civilization.Jortrnal
ofSocial Research
1958
I: 1- 9.
DeSoto, C. B.
The cffccts of imposed authority
status in a wheel group structure.
Unpublished
MA
1953
thesis. University of Wisconsin.
Faucheux,
C. and S. Moscovici
Etudes sur la cr@ativite des groupcs tiche, structures
des communications
et rdussite.
1960
Bulletin du CARP. 9: 11~ 12.
Faucheux,
C. and K. D. Mackenzie
Task dcpcndency
of organizational
centrality:
its behavioral
consequences.
Journal of
1966
Experimental
Social Psychology 2: 361 375.
I~lament, C.
Changements
de rhles et adaptation
i la tiche dans des groups de travail utilisant divers
1956
r&caux de communication.
ArzrzPe Psych. 56: 411.-432.
1958a
La performance
des groupes de travail, rapports entre la structure de lactivite ct celle du
r&eau dc communication.
Ann&e Psych. 58: 7 1 89.
Performance
et rdseau de communication.
Bulletin du Centre dEtudes et de Recherches
1958b
Psychotechniques
7: 91-106.
Processus
dintluence
sociale et r&au
de communication.
Psych. Francaise. 6: I15
1961
125.
I:reeman
L. C.
1979
Centrality
in Social Networks:
I. Conceptual
clarification.
Social Networks,
I: OOO- 000.
Gilchrist, J. C., M. lX. Shaw and L. C. Walker
Some effects of unequal distribution
of information
in a wheel-group
structure.
Journal
1954
ofiihnormal
and Social Psychology 49: 554 556.
Goldberg, S. C.
1955
Influence
and lcadcrship
as a function
of group structure.
Journal of Ahnormal and
Social Psychology 5 I : I 19 I 2 3.
Guctzkow,
H.
1951
Organizational
development
and restrictions
in communication.
Dittoed paper, Carnegie Institute
of Technology,
108 pp. Reprinted-unpublished
manuscript.
American
Documents
Institute No. 4590.
1954
Organizational
development
and restrictions
in communications.
Pittsburgh
Graduate
School of Industrial Administration,
Carnegie Institute of Technology.
1960
Diffcrcntiation
of roles in task-oriented
groups. In Darwin Cartwright
and Alvin Zandcr
(eds). Group Dynamics:
Research and Theory (2nd ed.) Evanston, Illinois: Row, Peterson
and Co. 683-704.
Guetzkow,
H. and W. R. Dill
1957
Factors
in the organizational
development
of task oriented
groups.
Sociometry
20.
175 -204.
Guetzkow,
H. and H. A. Simon
1955
The impact of certain communication
nets upon organization
and performance
in ta%koriented groups. Management Science 1: 233-250.
Harqhberger,
D.
1971
An investigation
of a structural
model of a small-group
problem-solving.
Human Relations 24: 43-63.
Ilcise, G. and G. Miller
1951
Problem-solving
by small groups using various communication
nets. Journal of Ahnorma1 and Social Psychology 46: 321-335.
1961

140

I,. C. Frectt~at~. 0. Roeder

at& R. R. M~rlhtllatzd

Centrality in social networks

141

Contlicting
principles
in man-machine
system design. Journal of Applied Ps,vcholog~~
41: 170-178.
Rogers, I:. M. and R. Agarwala-Rogers
Communication
networks
in organizations.
Chapter 5 in Communication in Organiza1976
tions, New York: The Free Press, pp. 108 148.
Roggc, G.
Personality
factors
and their intluencc
on group bchatior:
a questionnaire
study.
1953
Research
Lab. of Llcctronics,
Technical Report No. 265, Massachusetts
fnstitutc
of
Tcchnolory.
Sabidussi, G.
-The centrality
index of a graph. Psychornetrika 31: 58 1 603
1966
Schein. I:. H.. S. H. White and W. F. Hill
The organization
of communication
in small problem-solving
groups. American PsychoI,;,
logist IO (Abstract).
Shaw, M. 1
The effects of unequal distribution
of information
upon leadership,
morale, and prob1953
lem solution efficiency
in various communication
nets. Llnpublishcd
PhD dissertation,
University of Wisconsin.
Some effects of unequal distribution
of information
upon group performance
in various
1954a
communication
nets. Journal ofAbnormal and Social Psychology 49: 547 -553.
Group structure
and the behavior of individuals in small groups. Journal of Psychology
1954b
38: 139-149.
Some
effects of problem
complexity
upon problem
solution
efficiency
in different
1954c
communication
n&s. Journal ofhxperirnental Psychology 48: 2 11-2 17.
A comparison
of two type< of leadership
in various communication
nets. Journal of
19553
Abnormal ad Social Psychology 50: 127 134.
Communication
patterns
in small groups.
Research Reviews /Z-IS,
Office of Naval
I955b
Research.
Random
versus systematic
distribution
of information
in communication
nets. Journal
1956
of Personality 25: 59%69.
Some effects of irrelevant information
upon problem-solving
by small groups. Journal
1958
0fSocial Psychology 4 7: 3 3 -~37.
Acccptancc
of authority,
group structure
and the cffcctivcness
of small groups. Journal
1959
ofPersorzality 27: 196 -2 10.
Shaw, M. f and G. H. Rothschild
Some effects
of prolonged
experience
in communication
nets. Journal 01 Applied
1956
Psychology 40: 28 1m-286.
Shaw, M. I;., G. H. Rotschild and J. F. Strickland
Decision proccsscs in communication
nets. Journal ofAbnorma1 and Social Psychology
1957
54: 323 -. 330.
Shelley, M. W.
The effects of problem saturation
in various communication
networks.
Unpublished
MA
1953
thesis, University of Wisconsin.
Shelley, M. W. and J. C. Gilchrist
Some effects of communication
requirements
in group structures.
Jourruzl of Social
1958
Psychology 48: 37-44.
Shure. G. H., M. S. Rogers, 1. M. Larson and J. Tassone
Group planning and task cffectivencss.
Sociometry 2.5: 263 281.
1962
Smith, Sidney L.
Communication
pattern and the adaptability
of task-oriented
groups: an cxpcrimental
1950
study.
Group Networks
Laboratory,
Research Laboratory
of Electronics,
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology.
Member satisfaction
in stable communication
networks.
Sociometr_v 37: 38-5 3.
1974
Trow, D. B.
Autonomy
and job satisfaction
in task-oriented
groups.
1957
Journal of Abnormal and
Social Psychology 54: 204.-209.
Walker, L. C.
The cffccts of group size and group structure
on problemsolving
behavior in small
1954
groups. Unpublished
PhD dissertation.
University of Wisconsin.
Watson, D. and B. Bromberg
Power,
communication
and position
satisfaction
in task-oricntcd
groups. Journal of
1965
Personality and Social Psvchology 2: 859-864.
1957b