Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T19:48:00.341Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - From Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M. Cook, “Birds of a Feather”

from III - Later Foundations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2021

Edited by
Mario L. Small ,
Brea L. Perry ,
Bernice Pescosolido  and
Edward B. Smith
Mario L. Small
Affiliation:
Harvard University, Massachusetts
Brea L. Perry
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Bernice Pescosolido
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Edward B. Smith
Affiliation:
Northwestern University, Illinois
Get access

Summary

Homophily is the higher probability of connection between similar as opposed to dissimilar entities. It is a property of social systems. It is not a synonym for “similarity” or “interpersonal liking for similar others.” In this chapter, we review the steady growth in the homophily literature citing “Birds of a Feather Flock Together“ (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook 2001). We argue that homophily has law-like properties spanning empirical domains, allowing its incorporation into a wide array of research streams across and even outside the social sciences. While we are encouraged to see an important sociological concept gain wide acceptance, we urge researchers to return to its social structural roots. Homophily is fundamentally a concept created to better understand structuration processes at various level of analysis, from interactions to organizations and beyond. We advocate a research agenda we hope will integrate homophily research through a dynamic view of social structure. We point to how new data sources and methods are poised to help bring greater integration to the enormous flock of homophily researchers.

Keywords

homophilynetworkssocial structurerelational sociologystructuration
Type
Chapter
Information
Personal Networks
Classic Readings and New Directions in Egocentric Analysis
 , pp. 444 - 458
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2021

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aldrich, Howard, Reese, Pat Ray, and Dubini, Paola. 1989. “Women on the Verge of a Breakthrough: Networking among Entrepreneurs in the United States and Italy.” Journal of Entrepreneurship and Regional Development 1: 339–56.Google Scholar
Almack, John C. 1922. “The Influence of Intelligence on the Selection of Associates.” School and Society 16(410): 529–30.Google Scholar
Aristotle, . 1934. Rhetoric. Nichomachean Ethics. In Aristotle in 23 volumes. Translated by Harris Reackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bainbridge, William Sims, and Stark, Rodney. 1981. “Friendship, Religion and the Occult: A Network Study.” Review Religious Research 22: 313–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernard, H. Russell, Killworth, Peter, Evans, Michael, McCarty, Christopher, and Shelley, Gene Ann. 1988. “Studying Social Relations Cross-Culturally.” Ethnology 27: 155–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bielby, William T., and Baron, James N.. 1986. “Men and Women at Work: Sex Segregation and Statistical Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 759–99.Google Scholar
Billy, John O. G., Rodgers, Joseph Lee, and Richard Udry, J.. 1984. “Adolescent Sexual Behavior and Friendship Choice.” Social Forces 62: 653–78.Google Scholar
Blau, Judith. 1974. “Patterns of Communication among Theoretical High Energy Physicists.” Sociometry 37: 391–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., Beeker, Carolyn, and Fitzpatrick, Kevin M.. 1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage.” Social Forces 62: 585–606.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., Blum, Terry C., and Schwartz, Joseph. 1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review 47: 45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, Peter M., Ruan, Danching, and Ardelt, Monika. 1991. “Interpersonal Choice and Networks in China.” Social Forces 69: 1037–62.Google Scholar
Blau, Peter M., and Schwartz, Joseph E.. 1984. Crosscutting Social Circles. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Blum, Terry C. 1984. “Racial Inequality and Dalience: An Examination of Blau’s Theory of Social Structure.” Social Forces 62: 607–17.Google Scholar
Bott, Helen. 1928. “Observation of Play Activities in a Nursery School.” Genetic Psychology Monographs 4: 44–88.Google Scholar
Brass, Daniel J. 1985. “Men’s and Women’s Networks: A Study of Interaction Patterns and Influence in an Organization.” Academy of Management Journal 28: 327–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1982. Toward a Structural Theory of Action. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1985. “General Social Survey Network Items.” Connections 8: 119–23.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1990. “Kinds of Relations in American Discussion Networks,” pp. 411–51 in Structures of Power and Constraint, edited by Calhoun, C., Meyer, M. W., and Scott, W. R.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Burt, Ronald S. 1991. “Measuring Age as a Structural Concept.” Social Networks 13:1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Karen E. 1988. “Gender Differences in Job-Related Networks.” Work and Occupations 15: 179–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, Karen E., Marsden, Peter, and Hurlbert, Jeanne. 1986. “Social Resources and Socioeconomic Status.” Social Networks 8: 97–117.Google Scholar
Cohen, Jere. 1977. “Sources of Peer Group Homogeneity.” Sociology of Education 50: 227–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duncan, Otis D., Featherman, D. L, Duncan, B.. 1972. Sociometric Background and Achievement. New York: Seminar.Google Scholar
Duncan, Otis D., Haller, Archibald, and Portes, Alejandro. 1968. “Peer Influences on Aspirations: A Reinterpretation.” American Journal of Sociology 74: 119–37.Google Scholar
Eder, Donna, and Hallinan, Maureen. 1978. “Sex Differences in Children’s Friendships.” American Sociological Review 43: 237–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feld, Scott. 1982. “Structural Determinants of Similarity among Associates.” American Sociological Review 47: 797–801.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feld, Scott. 1984. “The Structured Use of Personal Associates.” Social Forces 62: 640–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Festinger, Leon. 1950. “Informal Social Communication.” Psychological Review 57: 271–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fischer, Claude. 1977. Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Claude. 1982. To Dwell among Friends. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Freeman, Linton C. 1996. “Some Antecedents of Social Network Analysis.” Connections 19: 39–42.Google Scholar
Friedkin, Noah E. 1993. “Structural Bases of Interpersonal Influence in Groups.” American Sociological Review 58: 861–72.Google Scholar
Galaskiewicz, Joseph, and Shatin, Deborah. 1981. “Leadership and Networking among Neighborhood Human Service Organizations.” Administrative Science Quarterly 26: 434–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greenberger, Ellen, and Sorenson, Annemette. 1971. “Interpersonal Choices among a Junior High School Faculty.” Sociology of Education 44: 198–216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallinan, Maureen, and Smith, Stevens. 1985. “The Effects of Classroom Racial Composition on Students’ Interracial Friendliness.” Social Psychology Quarterly 48: 3–16.Google Scholar
Maureen, Hallinan, and Williams, Richard. 1989. “Interracial Friendship Choice in Secondary Schools.” American Sociological Review 54: 67–78.Google Scholar
Hauser, Robert M. 1982. “The Structure of Social Relationships: Cross-Classifications of Mobility, Kinship and Friendship,” pp. 205–68 in Social Structure and Behavior: Essays in Honor of William Hamilton Sewell, edited by Hauser, R. M., Mechanic, D., Haller, A. O., and Hauser, T. S.. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Michael, Hout. 1982. “Association between Husband’s and Wive’s Occupations in Two-Earner Families.” American Journal of Sociology 88: 397–409.Google Scholar
Hubbard, Ruth M. 1929. “A Method of Studying Spontaneous Group Formation,” pp. 76–85 in Some New Techniques for Studying Social Behavior, edited by Thomas., Dorothy S. Child Development Monograph 1. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University. www.worldcat.org/title/some-new-techniques-for-studying-social-behavior/oclc/1358921Google Scholar
Huckfeldt, Robert, and Sprague, John. 1995. Citizens, Politics and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huston, Ted, and Levinger, George. 1978. “Interpersonal Attraction and Relationships.” Annual Review of Psychology 29: 115–56.Google Scholar
Iannaccone, Lawrence. 1988. “A Formal Model of Church and Sect.” American Journal of Sociology 94S: S241–68.Google Scholar
Ibarra, Herminia. 1992. “Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm.” Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 422–47.Google Scholar
Ibarra, Herminia. 1995. “Race, Opportunity and Diversity of Social Circles in Managerial Networks.” Academic Management Review 38: 673–703.Google Scholar
Jussim, Lee, and Wayne Osgood, D.. 1989. “Influence and Similarity among Friends: An Integrative Model Applied to Incarcerated Adolescents.” Social Psychology Quarterly 52: 98–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalleberg, Arne, Knoke, David, Marsden, Peter, and Spaeth, Joe L.. 1996. Organizations in America: Analyzing Their Structures and Human Resource Practices. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
Kalmijn, Matthijs. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns and Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology 24: 395–421.Google Scholar
Kandel, Denise B. 1978. “Homophily, Selection and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships.” American Journal of Sociology 84: 427–36.Google Scholar
Knoke, David. 1990. “Networks of Political Action: Toward Theory Construction.” Social Forces 68: 1041–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laumann, Edward. 1966. Prestige and Association in an Urban Community. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward. 1973. Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Laumann, Edward, and Pappi, Franz. 1976. Networks of Collective Action: A Perspective on Community Influence Systems. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lawrence, Barbara. 2000. “Organizational Reference Groups: How People Constitute the Human Component of their Work Environment.” Working Paper, Anderson Graduate School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, Paul, and Merton, Robert. 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis,” pp. 18–66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by Berger, M.. New York: Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Liao, Tim, and Stevens, Gillian. 1994. “Spouses, Homogamy and Social Networks.” Social Forces 73: 693–707.Google Scholar
Lincoln, James, and Miller, Jon. 1979. “Work and Friendship Ties in Organizations: A Comparative Analysis of Relational Networks.” Administrative Science Quarterly 24: 181–99.Google Scholar
Loomis, Charles. 1946. “Political and Occupational Cleavages in a Hanoverian Village.” Sociometry 9: 316–33.Google Scholar
Louch, Hugh. 2000. “Personal Network Integration: Transitivity and Homophily in Strong-Tie Relations.” Social Networks 22: 45–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maccoby, Eleanor. 1998. The Two Sexes: Growing Up Apart, Coming Together. Cambridge, MA: Belknap/Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, Peter. 1987. “Core Discussion Networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review 52: 122–313.Google Scholar
Marsden, Peter. 1988. “Homogeneity in Confiding Relations.” Social Networks 10: 57–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marsden, Peter. 1990. “Network Diversity, Sub-Structures and Opportunities for Contact,” pp. 397–410 in Structures of Power and Constraint: Papers in Honor of Peter Blau, edited Calhoun, C., Meyer, M., and Scott, R. S.. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Marsden, Peter, and Gorman, Elizabeth. 2001. “Social Networks, Job Changes and Recruitment,” In Sourcebook on Labor Markets: Evolving Structures and Processes, edited by Berg, I., and Kalleberg, A. L.. New York: Kluwer Academic/ Plenum.Google Scholar
Marx, John, and Lee Spray, S.. 1972. “Psychotherapeutic ‘Birds of a Feather’: Social Class Status and Religio-Cultural Value Homophily in the Mental Health Field.” Journal of Health Social Behavior 13: 413–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mayhew, Bruce, Miller McPherson, J., Rotolo, Thomas, and Lovin, Lynn Smith-. 1995. “Sex and Ethnic Heterogeneity in Face-to-Face Groups in Public Places: An Ecological Perspective on Social Interaction.” Social Forces 74: 15–52.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller. 1981. “Voluntary Affiliation: A Structural Approach,” pp. 325–52 in Continuities in Structural Inquiry, edited by Blau, P. M., and Merton, R. K.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller. 1981. “A Dynamic Model of Voluntary Affiliation.” Social Forces 59: 705–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller. 1982. “Hypernetwork Sampling: Duality and Differentiation among Voluntary Associations.” Social Networks 3: 225–49.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller. 1983a. “The Size of Voluntary Associations.” Social Forces 64: 1044–64.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller. 1983b. “An Ecology of Affiliation.” American Sociological Review 48: 519–32.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, and Smith-Lovin., Lynn 1982. “Women and Weak Ties: Sex Differences in the Size of Voluntary Associations.” American Journal of Sociology 87: 883–904.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1986. “Sex Segregation in Voluntary Associations.” American Sociological Review 51: 61–79.Google Scholar
McPherson, J. Miller, and Smith-Lovin, Lynn. 1987. “Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-Face Groups.” American Sociological Review 52: 370–9.Google Scholar
Ooka, Emi, and Wellman, Barry. 2001. “Does Social Capital Pay Off More within or between Ethnic Groups? Analyzing Job Searchers in Five Toronto Ethnic Groups,” in Inside the Mosaic, edited by Fong, E.. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.Google Scholar
Park, Robert, and Burgess, Ernest W.. 1921. Introduction to the Science of Sociology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Plato, . 1968. Laws. Plato in Twelve Volumes, vol. 11. Translated by Robert Gregg Bury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Popielarz, Pamela. 1999. “(In)Voluntary Association: A Multilevel Analysis of Gender Segregation in Voluntary Organizations.” Gender & Society 13: 234–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reskin, Barbara, McBrier, Debra, and Kmec, Julie. 1999. “The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Sex and Race Composition.” Annual Review of Sociology 25: 335–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richardson, Helen. 1940. “Community of Values as a Factor in Friendships of College and Adult Women.” Journal of Social Psychology 11: 303–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, Robert J. 1984. “Group Size, Heterogeneity and Intergroup Conflict: A Test of Blau’s Inequality and Heterogeneity.” Social Forces 62: 618–39.Google Scholar
Mark, Schneider, Teske, Paul, Roch, Christine, and Marschall, Melissa. 1997. “Networks to Nowhere: Segregation and Stratification in Networks of Information about Schools.” American Political Science Review 41: 1201–2.Google Scholar
Schofeld, Janet W. 1995. “Review of Research on School Desegregation’s Impact on Elementary and Secondary School Students,” pp. 597–616 in Handbook of Research on Multicultural Education, edited by Banks, J. A., and McGee, C. A.. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Shrum, Wesley, Cheek, Neil H. Jr., and Hunter, Saundra. 1988. “Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily.” Sociology of Education 61: 227–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simmel, Georg. 1971. On Individuality and Social Forms. Edited by Levine, Donald N.. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Lynn, Smith-Lovin, and McPherson, J. Miller. 1993. “You Are Who You Know: A Network Perspective on Gender,” pp. 223–51 in Theory on Gender/ Feminism on Theory, edited by England, P.. New York: Aldine.Google Scholar
South, Scott J., Bonjean, Charles M., Markham, William T., and udy Corder, J. 1982. “Social Structure and Group Interaction: Men and Women of the Federal Bureaucracy.” American Sociological Review 47: 587–99.Google Scholar
South, Scott J., Bonjean, Charles M., Markham, William T., and udy Corder, J. 1983. “Female Labor Force Participation and the Organizational Experiences of Men and Women.” Sociological Quarterly 24: 367–80.Google Scholar
South, Scott J., and Felson., Richard B. 1990. “The Racial Patterning of Rape.” Social Forces 69: 71–93.Google Scholar
South, Scott J., and Messner, Steven F.. 1986. “Structural Determinants of Intergroup Association: Interracial Marriage and Crime.” American Journal of Sociology 91: 1409–30.Google Scholar
Tuma, Nancy, and Hallinan, Maureen. 1979. “The Effects of Sex, Race and Achievement on Schoolchildren’s Friendships.” Social Forces 57: 1265–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbrugge, Lois M. 1977. “The Structure of Adult Friendship Choices.” Social Forces 56: 576–97.Google Scholar
Verbrugge, Lois M. 1983. “A Research Note on Adult Friendship Contact: A Dyadic Perspective.” Social Forces 62: 78–83.Google Scholar
Wellman, Beth. 1929. “The School Child’s Choice of Companions.” The Journal of Educational Research 14: 126–32.Google Scholar
Wellman, Beth. 1996. “Are Personal Communities Local? A Dumptarian Reconsideration.” Social Networks 18: 347–54.Google Scholar
Wright, Erik Olin. 1997. Class Counts: Comparative Studies in Class Analysis. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, Kazuo. 1990. “Homophily and Social Distance in the Choice of Multiple Friends: An Analysis Based on Conditional Symmetric Log-Bilinear Association Models.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 85: 356–66.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×