Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
Articles

Homophily: Measures and Meaning

    Published Online:10 Aug 2020https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2018.0147

    Abstract

    Homophily, the tendency to associate with similar others, is a fundamental pattern underlying human relationships. Although scholars largely agree on the definition of homophily, their empirical measures of it vary widely. This both raises the question of whether everyone is studying the same phenomenon and suggests that our understanding of homophily is incomplete. To address this question, we examined the homophily literature from 1954 through 2018 and constructed a typology that includes the empirical measures most commonly used. We found that these measures tend to neglect the meaning that people attribute to and derive from homophilous relationships in three ways. First, measures often do not capture how individuals’ interactions with others influence their sense of the world—how social constructions affect meaning. Second, measures often do not capture whether individuals interpret and attach importance to their associations or similarities the same way researchers do. Finally, measures often do not capture the meaning-related ambiguities introduced by studies of multiple types of social contexts, associations, and similarities. Because homophily remains a central construct in social science, this divergence between measures and meaning suggests a need for refinement.

    REFERENCES

    • Ackland, R., & O’Neil, M. 2011. Online collective identity: The case of the environmental movement. Social Networks, 33(3): 177–190, as cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Aguilar-Gallegos, N., Muñoz-Rodríguez, M., Santoyo-Cortés, H., Aguilar-Ávila, J., & Klerkx, L. 2015. Information networks that generate economic value: A study on clusters of adopters of new or improved technologies and practices among oil palm growers in Mexico. Agricultural Systems, 135: 122–132. Google Scholar
    • Appold, S. J., Siengthai, S., & Kasarda, J. D. 1998. The employment of women managers and professionals in an emerging economy: Gender inequality as organizational practice. Administrative Science Quarterly, 43(3): 538–565. Google Scholar
    • Baym, N. K., & Ledbetter, A. 2009. Tunes that bind? Predicting friendship strength in a music-based social network. Information, Communication & Society, 12(3): 408–427. Google Scholar
    • Beckman, C. M., & Phillips, D. J. 2005. Interorganizational determinants of promotion: Client leadership and the attainment of women attorneys. American Sociological Review, 70: 678–701. Google Scholar
    • Behrman, J. R., Kohler, H.-P., & Watkins, S. C. 2002. Social networks and changes in contraceptive use over time: Evidence from a longitudinal study in rural Kenya. Demography, 39(4): 713–738. Google Scholar
    • Blau, P. M. 1977. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: The Free Press. Google Scholar
    • Blau, P. M., Ruan, D., & Ardelt, M. 1991. Interpersonal choice and networks in China. Social Forces, 69(4): 1037–1062. Google Scholar
    • Boardman, J. D., Domingue, B. W., & Fletcher, J. M. 2012. How social and genetic factors predict friendship networks. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Google Scholar
    • Brands, R. A., & Mehra, A. 2019. Gender, brokerage, and performance: A construal approach. Academy of Management Journal, 62(1): 196–219.Link , Google Scholar
    • Brashears, M. E., Hoagland, E., & Quintane, E. 2016. Sex and network recall accuracy. Social Networks, 44: 74–88. Google Scholar
    • Brown, J. J., & Reingen, P. H. 1987. Social ties and work-of-mouth referral behavior. Journal of Consumer Research, 14(3): 350–362. Google Scholar
    • Browne, I., & Misra, J. 2003. The intersection of gender and race in the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29: 487–513. Google Scholar
    • Burt, R. S. 1984. Network items and the general social survey. Social Networks, 6(4): 293–339. Google Scholar
    • Byrne, D. E. 1971. The attraction paradigm. New York: Academic Press. Google Scholar
    • Byrne, D. E., & Griffitt, W. 1973. Interpersonal attraction. Annual Review of Psychology, 24: 317–336. Google Scholar
    • Cialdini, R. B. 2009. We have to break up. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 4(1): 5–6. Google Scholar
    • Davenport, E., & Cronin, B. 2000. The citation network as a prototype for representing trust in virtual environments. In B. Cronin & H. Atkins (Eds.), The Web of Knowledge: A Festschrift in Honor of Eugene Garfield. Metford, NJ: Information Today, as cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Eisenstadt, S. N. 1956/1962. From Generation to Generation. New York: Free Press. Google Scholar
    • Espelage, D. L., Holt, M. K., & Henkel, R. R. 2003. Examination of peer-group contextual effects on aggression during early adolescence. Child Development, 74(1): 205–220. Google Scholar
    • Eyal, K., & Rubin, A. M. 2003. Viewer aggression and homophily, identification, and parasocial relationships with television characters. Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic Media, 47: 77–98. Google Scholar
    • Feld, S. L. 1981. The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86: 1015–1035. Google Scholar
    • Ferber, P. H., & Pugliese, R. R. 2000. Partisans, proximates, and poker players: The impact of homophily and proximity on communication patterns of state legislators. Polity, 32: 401–141. Google Scholar
    • Fischer, C. S. 1982. To dwell among friends: Personal networks in town and city. Chicago: University of Chicago. Google Scholar
    • Fischer, E., Gainer, B., & Bristor, J. 1997. The sex of the service provider: Does it influence perceptions of service quality? Journal of Retailing, 73(3): 361–382. Google Scholar
    • Flynn, F. J., Reagans, R. E., & Guillory, L. 2010. Do you two know each other? Transitivity, homophily, and the need for (network) closure. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 99(5): 855–869. Google Scholar
    • Friedkin, N. E. 1990. A Guttman scale for the strength of an interpersonal tie. Social Networks, 12: 239–252. Google Scholar
    • General Social Survey. 1972 to present. The General Social Survey (GSS) is a project of the independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation. Retrieved from http://www.norc.org/Research/Projects/Pages/general-social-survey.aspx. Accessed July 4, 2016. Google Scholar
    • Gower, J. C., & Legendre, P. 1986. Metric and Euclidean properties of dissimilarity coefficients. Journal of Classification, 3: 5–48. Google Scholar
    • Henrich, J., Heine, S. J., & Norenzayan, A. 2010. The weirdest people in the world? Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 33: 61–135. Google Scholar
    • Hirsch, B. T., Prange, S., Hauver, S. A., & Gehrt, S. D. 2013. Genetic relatedness does not predict racoon social network structure. Animal Behaviour, 85(2): 463–470. Google Scholar
    • Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. 1978. Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29: 115–156. Google Scholar
    • Ibarra, H. 1992. Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3): 422–447. Google Scholar
    • Ibarra, H. 1993. Personal networks of women and minorities in management: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 18(1): 56–87.Link , Google Scholar
    • Ibarra, H., Kilduff, M., & Tsai, W. 2005. Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science, 16(4): 359–371. Google Scholar
    • Kandel, D. B. 1966. Status homophily, social context, and participation in psychotherapy. American Journal of Sociology, 71(6): 640–650. Google Scholar
    • Kanter, R. M. 1976. The policy issues: Presentation VI. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 1(Spring, part 2): 282–291, as cited in Kanter (1977). Google Scholar
    • Kanter, R. M. 1977. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books. Google Scholar
    • Kleinbaum, A. M., Stuart, T. E., & Tushman, M. L. 2013. Discretion within constraint: Homophily and structure in a formal organization. Organization Science, 24(5): 1316–1336. Google Scholar
    • Kleinberg, J. 1999. Authoritative sources in a hyperlinked environment. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery (JACM), 46(5): 604–632, as cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. 2009. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2): 405–450. Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, B. S. 1981. Historical perspective: Using the past to study the present. Academy of Management Review, 9(2): 307–312. Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, B. S. 1987. An organizational theory of age effects. Research in the Sociology of Organizations, 5: 35–71. Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, B. S. 1988. New wrinkles in the theory of age: Demography, norms and performance ratings. Academy of Management Journal, 31(2): 309–337.Link , Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, B. S. 1997. The black box of organizational demography. Organization Science, 8(1): 1–22. Google Scholar
    • Lawrence, B. S. 2006. Organizational reference groups: A missing perspective on social context. Organization Science, 17(1): 80–100. Google Scholar
    • Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. 1954. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. BergerT. AbelC. H. Page (Eds.), Freedom and control in modern society: 18–66. New York: Van Nostrand. Google Scholar
    • Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Chetkovich, C., Katz, N., & Neblo, M. 2010. The coevolution of networks and political attitudes. Political Communication, 27(3): 248–274. Google Scholar
    • Levinson, D. J., Darrow, C. N., Klein, E. B., Levinson, M. A., & McKee, B. 1978. The seasons of a man’s life. New York: Alfred A. Knopf. Google Scholar
    • Lewis, K., Gonzalez, M., & Kaufman, J. 2012. Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Google Scholar
    • Lusher, D., & Ackland, R. 2011. A relational hyperlink analysis of an online social movement. Journal of Social Structure, 12(4): http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume12/Lusher/. As cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Ma, L., Krishnan, R., & Montgomery, A. L. 2015. Latent homophily or social influence? An empirical analysis of purchase within a social network. Management Science, 61(2): 454–473. Google Scholar
    • Marrow, A. 1969. The practical theorist. New York: Knopf. Google Scholar
    • Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. 2012. Reflections on conceptualizing and measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 91(1): 17–23. Google Scholar
    • McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52(3): 370–379. Google Scholar
    • McPherson, J. M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415–444. Google Scholar
    • Merton, R. K. 1949/1968. Social theory and social structure (1968 enlarged ed.). New York: Free Press, Macmillan Publishing Co. Google Scholar
    • Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Google Scholar
    • Mollica, K. A., Gray, B., & Trevino, L. K. 2003. Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organization Science, 14(2): 123–136. Google Scholar
    • Moore, W. 1962. The conduct of the corporation. New York: Random House, as cited in Rivera, 2013: 376. Google Scholar
    • Moreno, J. L. 2011. In J. D. Moreno (Ed.), The Autobiography of J.L. Moreno M.D. Abridged. United Kingdom: The North-West Psychodrama Association (original work published in 1989). Google Scholar
    • Moreno, J. L. 2013. Who shall survive? A new aproach to the problem of human interrelations. New Delhi: Isha Books (original work published in 1934). Google Scholar
    • Neugarten, B. L., Moore, J. W., & Lowe, J. C. 1965. Age norms, age constraints, and adult socialization. American Journal of Sociology, 770: 710–717. Google Scholar
    • Oelberger, C. R. 2019. The dark side of deeply meaningful work: Work-relationship turmoil and the moderating role of occupational value homophily. Journal of Management Studies, 56(3): 558–588. Google Scholar
    • Park, H.W., Kim, C.S., & Barnett, G.A. 2004. Socio-communicational structure among political actors on the web in South Korea: The dynamics of digital presence in cyberspace. New Media & Society, 6(3): 403–423, as cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Popielarz, P. A. 1999. (In)Voluntary association: A multilevel analysis of gender segregation in voluntary organizations. Gender & Society, 13(2): 234–250. Google Scholar
    • Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster. Google Scholar
    • Ramarajan, L. 2014. Past, present and future research on multiple identities: Toward an intrapersonal network approach. The Academy of Management Annals, 8(1): 589–659.Link , Google Scholar
    • Randel, A., & Earley, P. C. 2009. Organizational culture and similarity among team members’ salience of multiple diversity characteristics. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 39(4): 804–833. Google Scholar
    • Rivera, L. A. 2012. Hiring as cultural matching: The case of elite professional service firms. American Sociological Review, 77(6): 999–1022. Google Scholar
    • Rivera, L. A. 2013. Homosocial reproduction. In V. V. Smith (Ed.), Sociology of work: An encyclopedia: 376–378. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Google Scholar
    • Rohan, M. J. 2000. A rose by any name? The values construct. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(3): 255–277. Google Scholar
    • Rotolo, T., & Wharton, A. S. 2003. Living across institutions: Exploring sex-based homophily in occupations and voluntary groups. Sociological Perspectives, 46(1): 59–82. Google Scholar
    • Ryan, L. 2015. Friendship-making: Exploring network formations through the narratives of Irish highly qualified migrants in Britain. Journal of Ethnic & Migration Studies, 41(10): 1664–1683. Google Scholar
    • Schmid-Petri, H., Adam, S., Reber, U., Haussler, T., Maier, D., Miltner, P., Waldherr, A. 2018. Homophily and prestige: An assessment of their relative strength to explain link formation in the online climate change debate. Social Networks, 55: 47–54. Google Scholar
    • Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40(3): 437–453. Google Scholar
    • Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. 1995. The ASA framework: An update. Personnel Psychology, 48: 747–773. Google Scholar
    • Spires, A. J. 2011. Organizational homophily in international grantmaking: US-based foundations and their grantees in China. Journal of Civil Society, 7(3): 305–331. Google Scholar
    • Stackman, R. W., & Pinder, C. C. 1999. Context and sex effects on personal work networks. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 16(1): 39–64. Google Scholar
    • Stark, T. H., & Flache, A. 2012. The double edge of common interest: Ethnic segregation as an unintended byproduct of opinion homophily. Sociology of Education, 85(2): 179–199. Google Scholar
    • Tajfel, H. 1978. Differentiation between social groups: Studies in the social psychology of intergroup relations. London: Academic Press, as cited in Ramarajan, 2014: 593. Google Scholar
    • Thelwall, M. 2006. Interpreting social science link analysis: A theoretical framework. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 57(1): 60–68. as cited in Schmid-Petri et al. 2018: 47. Google Scholar
    • Trope, Y., Liberman, N., & Wakslak, C. 2007. Construal levels and psychological distance: Effects on representation, prediction, evaluation, and behavior. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 17(2): 83–95. Google Scholar
    • United States Census Bureau. 1975. Bicentennial edition: Historical statistics of the United States, Colonial Times to 1970. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Google Scholar
    • United States Census Bureau. 2019. Employment status by sex. United States Census Bureau. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?pid=DEC_00_SF3_QTP24&prodType=table. Accessed on June 9, 2019. Google Scholar
    • Urada, D., Stenstrom, D. M., & Miller, N. 2007. Crossed categorization beyond the two-group model. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 92(4): 649–664. Google Scholar
    • Wallace, J. E. 2014. Gender and supportive co-worker relations in the medical profession. Gender, Work & Organization, 21(1): 1–17. Google Scholar
    • Web of Science Search Terms. 2019. Retrieved from http://images.webofknowledge.com/WOKRS533SR6ALERTMTN/help/WOS/hs_topic.html. Accessed October 18, 2019. Google Scholar
    • Yamaguchi, K., & Kandel, D. B. 1993. Marital homophily on illicit drug use among young adults: Assortative mating or marital influence? Social Forces, 72(2): 505–528. Google Scholar
    • Zeng, Z., & Xie, Y. 2008. A preference-opportunity-choice frame with applications to intergroup friendship. American Journal of Sociology, 114(3): 615–648. Google Scholar
    • Zhang, B., Vogt, M., Maggiora, G., & Bajorath, J. 2015. Comparison of bioactive chemical space networks generated using substructure- and fingerprint-based measures of molecular similarity. Journal of Computer-Aided Molecular Design, 29(7): 595–608. Google Scholar
    Academy of Management
      Academy of Management
      555 Pleasantville Road, Suite N200
      Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-8020, USA
      Phone: +1 (914) 326-1800
      Fax: +1 (914) 326-1900
    © 2023 Academy of Management
    Powered by Atypon® Literatum