Hostname: page-component-6898cfcb55-cbk24 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-11T17:12:03.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 September 2014

PER BLOCK and
THOMAS GRUND
PER BLOCK
Affiliation:
Oxford University, Nuffield College, New Road, OX1 1NF, Oxford, United Kingdom (e-mail: per.block@nuffield.ox.ac.uk)
THOMAS GRUND
Affiliation:
Institute for Futures Studies, Box 591, Holländargatan 13, 10131 Stockholm, Sweden and Department of Sociology, Stockholm University, Sweden (e-mail: thomas.grund@iffs.se)
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the 'Save PDF' action button.

Homophily—the tendency for individuals to associate with similar others—is one of the most persistent findings in social network analysis. Its importance is established along the lines of a multitude of sociologically relevant dimensions, e.g. sex, ethnicity and social class. Existing research, however, mostly focuses on one dimension at a time. But people are inherently multidimensional, have many attributes and are members of multiple groups. In this article, we explore such multidimensionality further in the context of network dynamics. Are friendship ties increasingly likely to emerge and persist when individuals have an increasing number of attributes in common? We analyze eleven friendship networks of adolescents, draw on stochastic actor-oriented network models and focus on the interaction of established homophily effects. Our results indicate that main effects for homophily on various dimensions are positive. At the same time, the interaction of these homophily effects is negative. There seems to be a diminishing effect for having more than one attribute in common. We conclude that studies of homophily and friendship formation need to address such multidimensionality further.

Keywords

homophilynetwork evolutionstochastic actor-oriented modelsadolescent networks

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Network Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , August 2014, pp. 189 - 212
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Footnotes

*

The collection of the DyNet data used in this research was supported by Award Number R01HD052887 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development or the National Institutes of Health. The collection of the ASSIST data used in this research was funded by the project “Social Network Analysis of Peers and Smoking in Adolescence (SNAPS)” funded by the Medical Research Council of the UK.

References

Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29 (1), 22–30.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity : a primitive theory of social structure. New York, London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.Google Scholar
Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. (1984). Crosscutting social circles : testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Orlando: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Burk, W. J., Steglich, C. E. G., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31 (4), 397–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Checkley, M., & Steglich, C. (2007). Partners in power: job mobility and dynamic deal-making. European Management Review, 4 (3), 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, 50 (4), 227–241.Google Scholar
Davis, J. A. (1970). Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: Testing two graph theoretical models on 742 sociomatrices. American Sociological Review, 35 (5), 843–851.Google Scholar
De Nooy, W. (2002). The dynamics of artistic prestige. Poetics, 30 (3), 147–167.Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86 (5), 1015–1035.Google Scholar
Feld, S. L. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47 (6), 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships - a hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53 (1), 13–30.Google Scholar
Festinger, L., & Hutte, H. A. (1954). An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 513–522.Google Scholar
Fischer, C. S. (1977). Networks and places : social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46 (1), 103–125.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1360–1380.Google Scholar
Grund, T., & Densley, J. (2012). Ethnic heterogeneity in the activity and structure of a black street gang. European Journal of Criminology, 9 (4), 388–406.Google Scholar
Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents' selection of similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), 209–219.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In Burke, P. J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111–136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115–156.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns - sex-differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (3), 422–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (2), 427–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knecht, A., Snijders, T. A. B., Baerveldt, C., Steglich, C. E. G., & Raub, W. (2010). Friendship and Delinquency: Selection and Influence Processes in Early Adolescence. Social Development, 19 (3), 494–514.Google Scholar
Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism : the form and substance of urban social networks. New York, London: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. (1954). 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. 18–66). New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Leenders, R. (1996). Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21 (1–2), 133–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, K., Gonzalez, M., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (1), 68–72.Google Scholar
Lindenberg, S. (2009). Why framing should be all about the impact of goals on cognitions and evaluations. In Hill, P., Kalter, F., Kroneberg, C., & Schnell, R. (Eds.), Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie (pp. 53–79). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.Google Scholar
Louch, H. (2000). Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Social Networks, 22 (1), 45–64.Google Scholar
Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52 (1), 122–131.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. M., & Smithlovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations - status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52 (3), 370–379.Google Scholar
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearson, M., & Michell, L. (2000). Smoke rings: social network analysis of friendship groups, smoking and drug-taking. Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy, 7 (1), 21–37.Google Scholar
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. Connections, 27 (1), 47–63.Google Scholar
Preciado, P., Snijders, T. A. B., Burk, W. J., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2012). Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social Networks, 34 (1), 18–31.Google Scholar
Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. E. (2003). Beyond black and white: The present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review, 68 (4), 540–566.Google Scholar
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A. and Preciado, P. (2014). Manual for RSiena. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College.Google Scholar
Schaefer, D. R. (2010). A configurational approach to homophily using lattice visualization. Connections, 30 (2), 21–40.Google Scholar
Schaefer, D. R., Kornienko, O., & Fox, A. M. (2011). Misery does not love company. American Sociological Review, 76 (5), 764–785.Google Scholar
Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school - gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61 (4), 227–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, G., ed. Wolff, K. H. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel: New York: Free press.Google Scholar
Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, J. M. (1993). You are who you know: a network perspective on gender. In England, P. (Ed.), Theory on gender/Feminism on theory (pp. 223–51). New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology 2001, 31, 361–395.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In Carrington, P., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (Ch. 11). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32 (1), 44–60.Google Scholar
Steglich, C., Sinclair, P., Holliday, J., & Moore, L. (2012). Actor-based analysis of peer influence in A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST). Social Networks, 34 (3), 359–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behaviour: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329–393.Google Scholar
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & West, B. (2006). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents' friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology, 2 (1), 48–56.Google Scholar
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 13 (2), 65–93.Google Scholar
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33–47). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
van de Bunt, G. G., Wittek, R. P. M. & de Klepper, M. C. (2005). The evolution of intra-organizational trust networks - The case of a German paper factory: An empirical test of six trust mechanisms. International Sociology, 20 (3), 339–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Duijn, M. A. J., Zeggelink, E. P. H., Huisman, M., Stokman, F. N., & Wasseur, F. W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27 (2–3), 153–191.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, L. M. (1977). Structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56 (2), 576–597.Google Scholar
Werner, C., & Parmelee, P. (1979). Similarity of activity preference among friends - those who play together stay together. Social Psychology, 42 (1), 62–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (2), 583–642.Google Scholar