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

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.

[1]  A. Portes,et al.  Embeddedness and Immigration: Notes on the Social Determinants of Economic Action , 1993, American Journal of Sociology.

[2]  W. Shrum.  Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily. , 1988 .

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

[4]  R. Leenders,et al.  Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices , 1996 .

[5]  Redes de amistad, felicidad y familia , 1994 .

[6]  Karen E. Campbell,et al.  Gender Differences in Job-Related Networks , 1988 .

[7]  Carol M. Werner,et al.  Similarity of Activity Preferences among Friends: Those Who Play Together Stay Together. , 1979 .

[8]  R. Alba,et al.  Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. , 1974 .

[9]  Keith E. Davis,et al.  Friendship and love relationships. , 1982 .

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

[11]  Claire Bidart.  L'amitié, les amis, leur histoire. Représentations et récits , 1991 .

[12]  Graham Allan,et al.  A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship , 2021 .

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

[14]  L. Smith-Lovin,et al.  Sex and Race Homogeneity in Naturally Occurring Groups , 1995 .

[15]  C. Loomis.  Political and occupational cleavages in a Hanoverian village, Germany : a sociometric study , 1946 .

[16]  N. Milburn.  To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. , 1983 .

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

[18]  Tom A. B. Snijders,et al.  Homophily and assimilation among sportactive adolescent substance users , 2006 .

[19]  H. Aldrich,et al.  STRONG TIES, WEAK TIES AND STRANGERS : Do women owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance? , 1997 .

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

[21]  N. Lin,et al.  Social Resources and Strength of Ties: Structural Factors in Occupational Status Attainment , 1981, Social Capital, Social Support and Stratification.

[22]  José Luis Molina,et al.  Redes. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales , 2011 .

[23]  Shmuel N. Eisenstadt,et al.  Patrons, Clients and Friends: Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society , 1987 .

[24]  R. Burt.  Structural Holes versus Network Closure as Social Capital , 2001 .

[25]  B. Wellman.  The School Child’s Choice of Companions , 1926 .

[26]  M. Kalmijn,et al.  Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. , 1998, Annual review of sociology.

[27]  Mark S. Granovetter.  The Strength of Weak Ties , 1973, American Journal of Sociology.

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

[29]  R. Park,et al.  Introduction to the Science of Sociology , 1921 .

[30]  Ted Mouw.  Social Capital and Finding a Job: Do Contacts Matter? , 2003, American Sociological Review.

[31]  H. Ibarra.  Race, Opportunity, And Diversity Of Social Circles In Managerial Networks , 1995 .

[32]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Structural Holes: The Social Structure of Competition , 1995, The SAGE Encyclopedia of Research Design.

[33]  R. Burt.  THE GENDER OF SOCIAL CAPITAL , 1998 .

[34]  Jere M. Cohen.  Sources of peer group homogeneity. , 1977 .

[35]  Barry Wellman,et al.  Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian reconsideration☆ , 1996 .

[36]  R. Burt.  The Network Structure Of Social Capital , 2000 .

[37]  Y. Connie Yuan,et al.  Homophily of Network Ties and Bonding and Bridging Social Capital in Computer-Mediated Distributed Teams , 2006, J. Comput. Mediat. Commun..

[38]  P. V. Marsden,et al.  Core Discussion Networks of Americans , 1987 .

[39]  N. Lin,et al.  Social Resources and Occupational Status Attainment , 1981 .

[40]  A. Lott,et al.  Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. , 1961, Journal of abnormal and social psychology.

[41]  Steven B. Andrews,et al.  Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. , 1993 .

[42]  J. Hamm,et al.  Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents' selection of similar friends. , 2000, Developmental psychology.

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

[44]  I. MacMillan,et al.  Entrepreneurship in a global context , 1997 .

[45]  L. Festinger,et al.  A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance , 2017 .

[46]  Morroe Berger,et al.  Freedom and control in modern society , 1954 .

[47]  L. Verbrugge.  The Structure of Adult Friendship Choices , 1977 .

[48]  Pedro López Roldán,et al.  Cohesión, Vinculación e Integración sociales en el marco del Capital Social , 2011 .

[49]  Connaissances passagères et vieux amis. Les durées de vie des relations interpersonnelles , 1989 .