homophily and heterophily in the position generated networks n.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Homophily and heterophily in the position-generated networks PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Homophily and heterophily in the position-generated networks

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 26
gail-wilson

Homophily and heterophily in the position-generated networks - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

184 Views
Download Presentation
Homophily and heterophily in the position-generated networks
An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Homophily and heterophily in the position-generated networks Dan Ao Department of Sociology The Chinese University of Hong Kong May 30th , 2008

  2. Homophily and heterophily • Social capital is defined as resources embedded in one’s social network (Lin, 2001). • From the perspective of resource composition, two types of social capital can be identified: • Homophilous (homophily) • heterophilous (heterophily) • Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954

  3. Homophily • There is voluminous evidence in the literature that the principle of homophily exists in social networks (e.g., Fischer 1982; Homans 1950; Laumann 1966, 1973, 1976; Lazarsfeld & Merton 1954; Lin 1982; Marsden 1981, 1988, 1990; McPherson et al. 2001). • The extent of homophily varies for each respondent, which may be one of the sources that differentiations in a variety of outcomes come out.

  4. Heterophily • Less attention has been paid to the heterophily principle. • How are the ties with groups other than that to which a respondent belongs formed? • Are the heterophilous ties formed randomly? • Are the heterophilous ties formed with certain patterns? • Social distance (Bogardus (1933), Laumann (1966), or McFarland and Brown (1973))

  5. Homophily and heterophily patterns in the name-generated network data (1) • Marsden (1988) examined the patterns of inbreeding and social distance on respondent-alter dyads discussing important matters using data collected with the name generator in the 1985 GSS. • The stratifying variables include: • Age • Education • Race/ethnicity • Religion • Sex

  6. Homophily and heterophily patterns in the name-generated network data (2) • His main conclusions are: • Discussion relations are most constrained by race/ethnicity, and least by sex and education; • Inbreeding effects are present for all five stratifying variables, and account for virtually all structure in dyads classified by race/ethnicity and religion; and • Appreciable social distance biases in the formation of these strong ties are found for age and education, but not for other stratifying variables.

  7. Homophily and heterophily patterns in the name-generated network data (3) • Smith-Lovin et al. (2007) replicated the name generator questions in the 2004 GSS. • 1985 2004? • They found that: • (1) racial homophily is still the most salient dimension among these five statuses and has remained relatively constant over the two decades; • (2) the tendencies of homophily over other statuses increase, with the exception of sex.

  8. Homophily and heterophily patterns in the position-generated network data (1) • To date, no studies have directly examined the patterns of homophily and heterophily using position-generated network data. • Studying network data from the position generator can yield fruitful results. • The differences between the name-generator and the position generator.

  9. The two techniques • The name generator technique: • Stronger ties, stronger role relations, or geographically limited ties (Campbell & Lee 1991) • Consisting mostly of the homophilous ties (friends and relatives) • Core network • The position generator technique: • A more diverse social ties in terms of tie strength, role relations, and number of ties • Composed of both homophilous (friends and relatives) and heterophilous ties (friends of friends, acquaintances) • Extended network

  10. Homophily and heterophily patterns in the position-generated network data (2) • This study tries to follow the methods used in Marsden (1988) to model the patterns of homophily and heterophily using the position-generated network data in SC-USA 2004-5. • Two types of special ties: • (1) very close ties • (2) non-kin ties

  11. Methods—association models

  12. Methods—design effects • As Marsden (1988) mentioned in his study, respondent-alter pairs are cluster sampled within respondents, therefore, there may be a design effect due to the clustering. • It is important to examine the effect of survey design on the distribution of X2 and propose simple adjustments of this statistic. • Holt et al. (1980) propose a one moment adjustment of the X2 : a weighted sum of cell design effects.

  13. Very close ties

  14. Non-kin ties

  15. Conclusions • The inbreeding bias exists in all of the three statuses, although the extent varies. • Compared with core discussion networks, the results show that in the extended networks, the degree of racial/ethnic homophily is still tremendously strong. • It helps explain why a certain racial/ethnic group (Latinos) is disadvantaged in the access to social capital and the eventual utility of social capital in status attainment.