Homophily and heterophily in personal networks. From mutual acquaintance to relationship intensity

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Carlos Lozares (1)
  Joan Miquel Verd (1)
  Irene Cruz (1)
  Oriol Barranco (1)
  
• 关键词：Homophily ; Heterophily ; Personal networks ; Affective proximity ; Interaction
• 刊名：Quality and Quantity
• 出版年：2014
• 出版时间：September 2014
• 年：2014
• 卷：48
• 期：5
• 页码：2657-2670
• 全文大小：358 KB
• 参考文献：1. Aldrich, H.E., Elam, A., Reese, P.R.: Strong ties, weak ties and strangers: Do women business owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance? In: Birley, S., MacMillan, I. (eds.) Entrepreneurship in a Global Context, pp. 1鈥?5. Routledge, London (1996)
  2. Allan, G.A.: A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship. G. Allen & Unwin, London (1979)
  3. Bidart, C.: L鈥檃miti茅, les amis, leur histoire. Repr茅sentations et r茅cits. Soci茅t茅s Contemporaines 5, 21鈥?2 (1991) CrossRef
  4. Burt, R.S.: Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R.S. (eds.) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 31鈥?6. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (2001)
  5. Burt, R.S.: Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)
  6. Burt, R.S.: The gender of social capital. Ration. Soc. 10, 5鈥?7 (1998) CrossRef
  7. Burt, R.S.: The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22, 345鈥?23 (2000) CrossRef
  8. Campbell, K.E.: Gender differences in job-related networks. Work Occup. 15, 179鈥?00 (1988) CrossRef
  9. Coenen-Hunther, : Relations d鈥檃miti茅, mobilit茅 spatiale et mobilit茅 sociale. Espaces et Soci茅t茅s 54鈥?55, 50鈥?5 (1989)
  10. Cohen, J.: Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociol. Educ. 50(4), 227鈥?41 (1977)
  11. Davis, K.E., Todd, M.J.: Friendship and love relationships. In: Davis, K.E. (ed.) Advances in Descriptive Psychology, pp. 79鈥?22. JAI Press, Greenwich (1982)
  12. Duncan, O.D., Featherman, D.L., Duncan, B.: Sociometric Background and Achievement. Seminar, New York (1972)
  13. Eisenstadt, S.N., Roniger, L.: Patrons, Clients and Friends; Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984) CrossRef
  14. Feld, S.: The focused organization of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 86(5), 1015鈥?035 (1981)
  15. Ferrand, A.: Amis et associ茅s. CESOL, Fasc. 1, 2, 6 (1985鈥?986).
  16. Ferrand, A.: Connaissances passag猫res et vieux amis, les dur茅es de vie des relations interpersonnelles. Revue Suisse de Sociologie 2, 431鈥?39 (1989)
  17. Ferrand, A.: L鈥檌nverse de l鈥檕rdre; essai d鈥檌nterpr茅tation d鈥檜n type d鈥檃miti茅., n.p., LASMAS-CNRS (1990).
  18. Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1957)
  19. Fischer, C.S.: To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1982)
  20. Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360鈥?380 (1973)
  21. Hamm, J.V.: Do birds of a feather flock together? Individual, contextual, and relationship bases for African American, Asian American, and European American Adolescents鈥?selection of similar friends. Dev. Psychol. 36(2), 209鈥?19 (2000) CrossRef
  22. Ibarra, H.: Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Acad. Manag. J. 38(3), 673鈥?03 (1995) CrossRef
  23. Ibarra, H., Andrews, S.B.: Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Adm. Sci. Quart. 38(2), 277鈥?03 (1993) CrossRef
  24. Kalmijn, M.: Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns and trends. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24, 395鈥?21 (1998) CrossRef
  25. Kossinets, G., Watts, D.J.: Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. AJS 115(2), 405鈥?50 (2009)
  26. Laumann, E.O.: Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. Wiley, New York (1973)
  27. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton, R.K.: Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger, M., Abel, T., Page, C.H. (eds.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pp. 18鈥?6. Octagon Books, New York (1954)
  28. Leenders, R.T.: Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Math. Sociology 21(1鈥?), 133鈥?48 (1996) CrossRef
  29. Lin, N., Ensel, N., Vaughn, J.C.: Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 393鈥?05 (1981a) CrossRef
  30. Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., Vaughn, J.C.: Social resources and occupational status attainment. Soc. Forces 59, 81鈥?163 (1981b) CrossRef
  31. Loomis, C.P.: Political and occupational cleavages in a Hanoverian village. Sociometry 9, 316鈥?33 (1946) CrossRef
  32. Lott, A.J., Lott, B.E.: Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 61, 408鈥?12 (1961) CrossRef
  33. Lozares, C., Verd, J.M., L贸pez-Rold谩n, P., Mart铆, J., Molina, J.L.: Cohesi贸n, Vinculaci贸n e Integraci贸n sociales en el marco del Capital social. REDES-Revista hispana para el an谩lisis de redes sociales. 20 1. http://revista-redes.rediris.es (2011). Accessed 24 Oct 2012
  34. Marsden, P.V.: Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 122鈥?13 (1987) CrossRef
  35. Mayhew, B. H., Mcpherson, J. M., Rotolo, T., Smith-Lovin, L., Carolina, S., McPherson, J. M.: Sex and race homogeneity in natural occurring groups. Soc. Forces 74(1), 15鈥?2 (1995)
  36. McPherson, J.M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.: Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415鈥?44 (2001) CrossRef
  37. Mollica, K., Gray, B., Trevino, K.: Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers鈥?social networks. Organ. Sci. 14(2), 123鈥?36 (2003) CrossRef
  38. Monge, P.R., Contractor, N.: Theories of Communication Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)
  39. Mouw, T.: Social capital and finding a job: Do contacts matter? Am. Sociol. Rev. 68, 868鈥?88 (2003) CrossRef
  40. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W.: Introduction to the Science of Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1921)
  41. Pearson, M., Steglich, Ch., Snijders, T.: Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. Connections 27(1), 47鈥?3 (2006)
  42. Portes, A., Sensenbrenner, J.: Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. AJS 98, 1320鈥?350 (1993)
  43. Requena, F.: Redes sociales y mecanismos de acceso al mercado del trabajo. Sociolog铆a del, Trabajo 11, 117鈥?40 (1990鈥?991)
  44. Requena, F.: Amigos y redes sociales. Elementos para una sociologia de la amistad. CIS-Siglo XXI, Madrid (1994a)
  45. Requena, F.: Redes de amistad, felicidad y familia. REIS 66, 73鈥?9 (1994b)
  46. Shrum, W., Cheek, N.H., Hunter, S.M.: Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Soc. Educ. 61, 227鈥?39 (1988) CrossRef
  47. Simmel, G., Simmel, G.: The strange. In: Levine, D. (ed.) Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings, pp. 43鈥?9. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1971)
  48. Verbrugge, L.M.: The structure of adult friendship choices. Soc. Forces 56(2), 576鈥?7 (1977)
  49. Verbrugge, L.M.: A research note on adult friendship contact: A dyadic perspective. Soc. Forces 62, 78鈥?3 (1983) CrossRef
  50. Wellman, B.: The school child鈥檚 choice of companions. J. Educ. Res. 14, 126鈥?32 (1929)
  51. Wellman, B.: Are personal communities local? A dumptarian reconsideration. Soc. Netw. 18, 347鈥?54 (1996) CrossRef
  52. Werner, C., Parmelee, P.: Similarity of activity preferences among friends: Those who play together stay together social. Psychol. Quart. 42(1), 62鈥?6 (1979)
  53. Yuan, Y.C., Gay, G.: Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging. Social capital in computer-mediated distributed teams. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 11(4), 11 (2006) CrossRef
  
• 作者单位：Carlos Lozares (1)
  Joan Miquel Verd (1)
  Irene Cruz (1)
  Oriol Barranco (1)
  
  1. Department of Sociology, Centre d鈥橢studis Sociol貌gics sobre la Vida Quotidiana i el Treball (QUIT), Institut d鈥橢studis del Treball (IET), Universitat Aut貌noma of Barcelona, Barcelona, Spain
  
• ISSN：1573-7845

文摘

This article deals with the analysis of homophily and heterophily in ego-centred networks (personal networks). The analysis takes a dual approach. First it uses the classical definition of homophily (in this article called elementary homophily) to compare mutual ties between groups defined by employment status, age and city of residence. These analyses are then enriched by incorporating the level of affective proximity, thus forming what we have called specific homophily. The analysis of elementary homophily confirms the expected predominance of homophilous relationships over heterophilous ones. The analysis of specific homophily shows that inter-group relationships between close and intimate contacts follow similar patterns, whereas these differ substantially for relationships that are not at all close. The comparison of the two types of homophily shows a correspondence between high values in elementary homophily and high values in close and intimate relationships.