Strong ties, strong homophily? Variation in homophily on sociodemographic characteristics by relationship strength

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY Social Forces Pub Date : 2024-12-10 DOI:10.1093/sf/soae169
David Kretschmer, Lars Leszczensky, Cassie McMillan
{"title":"Strong ties, strong homophily? Variation in homophily on sociodemographic characteristics by relationship strength","authors":"David Kretschmer, Lars Leszczensky, Cassie McMillan","doi":"10.1093/sf/soae169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Social networks are segregated by sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status. A key reason for this segregation is homophily, or people's preferences to associate with similar others. Homophily is documented for relationships of different strengths, ranging from marriage and close friendship to weaker acquaintanceships. But does sociodemographic homophily vary by relationship strength? While most researchers assume more pronounced sociodemographic homophily for strong than for weak relationships, theoretical expectations and empirical evidence are inconclusive. For instance, shared sociodemographic characteristics can come with joint experiences and identities that could facilitate the development of strong relationships. At the same time, however, matching personalities and attitudes may be necessary for forming strong relationships, so the superficial similarity that accompanies shared sociodemographic traits may only suffice for weak relationships. Based on these considerations, we test whether and how gender, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic status homophily vary by relationship strength in over 600 school-based networks of more than 20,000 adolescents from Israel, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Using valued exponential random graph models, we find consistent evidence that strong tie homophily exceeds weak tie homophily. While adolescents are more likely to report strong ties with those who share their gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status, homophily is less pronounced for weaker ties. Our finding suggests that it is crucial to consider the link between homophily and tie strength to understand the flow of information, resources, social support, and opportunities in social networks.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soae169","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Social networks are segregated by sociodemographic characteristics such as gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status. A key reason for this segregation is homophily, or people's preferences to associate with similar others. Homophily is documented for relationships of different strengths, ranging from marriage and close friendship to weaker acquaintanceships. But does sociodemographic homophily vary by relationship strength? While most researchers assume more pronounced sociodemographic homophily for strong than for weak relationships, theoretical expectations and empirical evidence are inconclusive. For instance, shared sociodemographic characteristics can come with joint experiences and identities that could facilitate the development of strong relationships. At the same time, however, matching personalities and attitudes may be necessary for forming strong relationships, so the superficial similarity that accompanies shared sociodemographic traits may only suffice for weak relationships. Based on these considerations, we test whether and how gender, ethnic, religious, and socioeconomic status homophily vary by relationship strength in over 600 school-based networks of more than 20,000 adolescents from Israel, England, Germany, the Netherlands, and Sweden. Using valued exponential random graph models, we find consistent evidence that strong tie homophily exceeds weak tie homophily. While adolescents are more likely to report strong ties with those who share their gender, ethnicity, religion, and socioeconomic status, homophily is less pronounced for weaker ties. Our finding suggests that it is crucial to consider the link between homophily and tie strength to understand the flow of information, resources, social support, and opportunities in social networks.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
期刊最新文献
“Not one of us”: anti-immigrant sentiment spread to multiple immigrant groups in the wake of Islamic terrorism Strong ties, strong homophily? Variation in homophily on sociodemographic characteristics by relationship strength The causal effect of liberalizing legal requirements on naturalization intentions The decoupling of socioeconomic status, postmaterialism, and environmental concern in an unequal world: a cross-national intercohort analysis “You just feel re-violated”: coercive sexual control in juvenile detention
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1