Gender homophily in online book networks

Abstract We measure the gender homophily (and other network statistics) on large-scale online book markets: amazon.com and amazon.co.uk , using datasets describing millions of books sold to readers. Large book networks are created by sales (two books are connected if many readers have bought both books) and can recommend new books to buy. The networks are analysed by the gender of their first author: is book consumption assortative by gender? Book networks are indeed gender-assortative: readers globally prefer to read from one author gender (the global assortativity coefficients by gender is around 0.4). Although 33% of first authors among all books are female, female books are not proportionally sold together with male books: an average of 20% (and median of 11%) of books co-bought with male books are female books. Instead, female books make up on average more than half of the books co-bought with other female books. The gender makeup of literary genres and structural book communities show that the gender homophily originates in a gender skew not only in certain literary genres (a fact known from prior studies), but even more strongly in certain book communities, with these book communities spanning multiple literary genres.

[1]  Duncan J. Watts,et al.  Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’ networks , 1998, Nature.

[2]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[3]  Henry Moon,et al.  The cultural mosaic: a metatheory for understanding the complexity of culture. , 2005, The Journal of applied psychology.

[4]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  Power-Law Distributions in Empirical Data , 2007, SIAM Rev..

[5]  T. Bugnyar,et al.  Sharing of science is most likely among male scientists , 2017, Scientific Reports.

[6]  R. Luce,et al.  A method of matrix analysis of group structure , 1949, Psychometrika.

[7]  David García,et al.  It's a Man's Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online Encyclopedia , 2015, ICWSM.

[8]  M E J Newman Assortative mixing in networks. , 2002, Physical review letters.

[9]  Karolin Kappler,et al.  Gender Patterns in a Large Online Social Network , 2014, SocInfo.

[10]  I. T. Young Proof without prejudice: use of the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test for the analysis of histograms from flow systems and other sources. , 1977, The journal of histochemistry and cytochemistry : official journal of the Histochemistry Society.

[11]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  On the Compliance of Women Engineers with a Gendered Scientific System , 2015, PloS one.

[12]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Reader and author gender and genre in Goodreads , 2019, J. Libr. Inf. Sci..

[13]  D. Groneberg,et al.  Gender disparities in high-quality research revealed by Nature Index journals , 2018, PloS one.

[14]  Deirdre M. Kirke Gender Clustering in Friendship Networks: Some Sociological Implications , 2009 .

[15]  Heather Ford,et al.  ‘Anyone can edit’, not everyone does: Wikipedia’s infrastructure and the gender gap , 2017, Social studies of science.

[16]  Anton van den Hengel,et al.  Image-Based Recommendations on Styles and Substitutes , 2015, SIGIR.

[17]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Book genre and author gender: Romance>Paranormal‐Romance to Autobiography>Memoir , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[18]  M. Thelwall Social networks, gender, and friending: An analysis of MySpace member profiles , 2008 .

[19]  M. McPherson,et al.  Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks , 2001 .

[20]  D. Watts,et al.  Origins of Homophily in an Evolving Social Network1 , 2009, American Journal of Sociology.

[21]  Jean-Loup Guillaume,et al.  Fast unfolding of communities in large networks , 2008, 0803.0476.

[22]  Doina Bucur,et al.  On the Gender of Books: Author Gender Mixing in Book Communities , 2017, COMPLEX NETWORKS.

[23]  M. Newman,et al.  Why social networks are different from other types of networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  {SNAP Datasets}: {Stanford} Large Network Dataset Collection , 2014 .

[25]  U. Brandes,et al.  Maximizing Modularity is hard , 2006, physics/0608255.

[26]  M. Newman,et al.  Mixing patterns in networks. , 2002, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.