The paradox of second-order homophily in networks

Homophily—the tendency of nodes to connect to others of the same type—is a central issue in the study of networks. Here we take a local view of homophily, defining notions of first-order homophily of a node (its individual tendency to link to similar others) and second-order homophily of a node (the aggregate first-order homophily of its neighbors). Through this view, we find a surprising result for homophily values that applies with only minimal assumptions on the graph topology. It can be phrased most simply as “in a graph of red and blue nodes, red friends of red nodes are on average more homophilous than red friends of blue nodes”. This gap in averages defies simple intuitive explanations, applies to globally heterophilous and homophilous networks and is reminiscent of but structurally distinct from the Friendship Paradox. The existence of this gap suggests intrinsic biases in homophily measurements between groups, and hence is relevant to empirical studies of homophily in networks.

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

[2]  Ciro Cattuto,et al.  Gender homophily from spatial behavior in a primary school: A sociometric study , 2013, Soc. Networks.

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

[4]  D. Lichter,et al.  Social Boundaries and Marital Assimilation: Interpreting Trends in Racial and Ethnic Intermarriage , 2007 .

[5]  Аna Bilinovic,et al.  Homophily in social networks , 2016 .

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

[7]  David Easley,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets by David Easley , 2010 .

[8]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Homophily and minority-group size explain perception biases in social networks , 2019, Nature Human Behaviour.

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

[10]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Homophily and minority size explain perception 1 biases in social networks , 2018 .

[11]  Markus Strohmaier,et al.  Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks , 2018, Scientific Reports.

[12]  Lars Backstrom,et al.  The Anatomy of the Facebook Social Graph , 2011, ArXiv.

[13]  Jonathan Cutler,et al.  The Multistep Friendship Paradox , 2016, Am. Math. Mon..

[14]  Kristen M. Altenburger,et al.  Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends , 2018, Nature Human Behaviour.

[15]  Lynn Smith-Lovin,et al.  Social Distance in the United States , 2014 .

[16]  Mason A. Porter,et al.  Social Structure of Facebook Networks , 2011, ArXiv.

[18]  Matthew O. Jackson,et al.  The Friendship Paradox and Systematic Biases in Perceptions and Social Norms , 2016, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  Mark Newman,et al.  Networks: An Introduction , 2010 .

[20]  Chris Arney,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World (Easley, D. and Kleinberg, J.; 2010) [Book Review] , 2013, IEEE Technology and Society Magazine.

[21]  Jacob E. Cheadle,et al.  The 'friendship dynamics of religion,' or the 'religious dynamics of friendship'? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools. , 2012, Social science research.

[22]  D. Peleg,et al.  Mixed preferential attachment model: Homophily and minorities in social networks , 2020 .

[23]  J. Moody.  Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America1 , 2001, American Journal of Sociology.

[24]  Kristina Lerman,et al.  The "Majority Illusion" in Social Networks , 2015, PloS one.

[25]  E. David,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World , 2010 .

[26]  S. Feld.  Why Your Friends Have More Friends Than You Do , 1991, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[28]  M. Jackson,et al.  An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities and Segregation , 2007 .

[29]  Gerardo Iñiguez,et al.  Cumulative effects of triadic closure and homophily in social networks , 2018, Science Advances.

[30]  Mark E. J. Newman,et al.  The Structure and Function of Complex Networks , 2003, SIAM Rev..

[31]  David Easley,et al.  Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Network Dynamics: Structural Models , 2010 .

[32]  Desmond J. Higham,et al.  Centrality-Friendship Paradoxes: When Our Friends Are More Important Than Us , 2018, J. Complex Networks.

[33]  Mark S. Granovetter.  Threshold Models of Collective Behavior , 1978, American Journal of Sociology.

[34]  Hang-Hyun Jo,et al.  Generalized friendship paradox in complex networks: The case of scientific collaboration , 2014, Scientific Reports.