Distance matters: Exploring proximity and homophily in virtual world networks

Distance has long been a powerful force that influences the ways in which we organize our personal relationships and collaborations. In the past two decades, globalization and the advent of Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) have brought profound changes to the formation and maintenance of communication networks in contemporary work and social settings by eliminating the constraints of physical distance on human interaction. To study the role of distance in ICT-enabled virtual worlds, we propose three dimensions of proximity-space, time, and homophily-and analyze the impact of distance, time zones, gender, age, and game age on building collaborative relations in online games. The results show that spatial proximity, temporal proximity, and homophily in age and game age still have a strong impact on players' behavior in creating online relations in virtual worlds, however, there is no evidence of gender homophily. This study suggests that offline proximity plays an important role in bringing people together in virtual worlds.

[1]  Barbara Gray,et al.  Racial Homophily and Its Persistence in Newcomers' Social Networks , 2003, Organ. Sci..

[2]  R. Burt.  Models of Network Structure , 1980 .

[3]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  Theories of Communication Networks , 2003 .

[4]  B. Wellman.  Computer Networks As Social Networks , 2001, Science.

[5]  S. Wasserman,et al.  Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs andp , 1996 .

[6]  S. Feld.  The Focused Organization of Social Ties , 1981, American Journal of Sociology.

[7]  F. Heider.  The psychology of interpersonal relations , 1958 .

[8]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Geography of Twitter networks , 2012, Soc. Networks.

[9]  L. Festinger,et al.  Social pressures in informal groups , 1950 .

[10]  A. Sunmade.  The World is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , 2008 .

[11]  L. Mosley,et al.  The World Is Flat: A Brief History of the Twenty-First Century , 2005 .

[12]  L. Verbrugge.  A Research Note on Adult Friendship Contact: A Dyadic Perspective , 1983 .

[13]  Kathleen M. Carley,et al.  Workgroup Members , 2022 .

[14]  Andreas Wittel.  Toward a Network Sociality , 2001 .

[15]  P. Lazarsfeld,et al.  Friendship as Social process: a substantive and methodological analysis , 1964 .

[16]  Noshir Contractor,et al.  Some assembly required: leveraging Web science to understand and enable team assembly , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[17]  Jennifer L. Gibbs,et al.  Unpacking the Concept of Virtuality: The Effects of , 2022 .

[18]  Keith N. Hampton,et al.  Long Distance Community in the Network Society , 2001 .

[19]  M. Newman.  Clustering and preferential attachment in growing networks. , 2001, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[20]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Distance Matters , 2000, Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[22]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.

[23]  Jonathon N. Cummings,et al.  The Spatial, Temporal, and Configurational Characteristics of Geographic Dispersion in Teams , 2007, MIS Q..

[24]  F. Reid.  Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory , 1987 .

[25]  T. Geisel,et al.  The scaling laws of human travel , 2006, Nature.

[26]  D. Byrne.  The Attraction Paradigm , 1971 .

[27]  J. Sylvan Katz,et al.  Geographical proximity and scientific collaboration , 1994, Scientometrics.

[28]  T. Allen.  Managing the flow of technology , 1977 .

[29]  Martina Morris,et al.  A statnet Tutorial. , 2008, Journal of statistical software.

[30]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. , 1987 .

[31]  Scott E. Caplan,et al.  Looking for Gender: Gender Roles and Behaviors Among Online Gamers , 2009 .

[32]  Dmitri Williams,et al.  The Mapping Principle, and a Research Framework for Virtual Worlds , 2010 .

[33]  Tora K. Bikson,et al.  Evolving electronic communication networks: an empirical assessment , 1986, CSCW '86.

[34]  Peng Wang,et al.  Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[35]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Did distance matter before the Internet?: Interpersonal contact and support in the 1970s , 2007, Soc. Networks.

[36]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  Patterns of contact and communication in scientific research collaboration , 1990, CSCW '88.

[37]  Howard E. Aldrich,et al.  The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[38]  Frances Cairncross.  The death of distance : how the communications revolution will change our lives , 1997 .

[39]  M. Hogg,et al.  Social Identity and Social Cognition , 1999 .

[40]  John C. Turner,et al.  Rediscovering the Social Group , 1987 .

[41]  Peter R. Monge,et al.  The Dynamics of Organizational Proximity , 1985 .

[42]  Thomas Falk,et al.  Intercommunications, Distance, and Geographical Theory , 1980 .

[43]  H. Ibarra.  Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. , 1992 .

[44]  Robert E. Kraut,et al.  --Understanding Effects of Proximity on Collaboration : Implications for Technologies to Support Remote Collaborative Work , 2001 .

[45]  Pamela J. Hinds,et al.  Managing Distances and Differences in Geographically Distributed Work Groups , 2002 .