Influence of the source of information on homophily assessment: data provided by subjects vs data provided by their confidants

• Authors: Kęska Adam , Przybysz Dariusz , Mach Bogdan W.
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

The present article analyses data on ego-centred networks from a nationally representative sample of Polish citizens (egos) and their regular conversation partners (alters). In the study being used, apart from obtaining information from the respondent (the ego) about characteristics of their friends (alters), the respondent was additionally asked to provide contact details for his/her alters and the interviewers traced them. This allows to compare data concerning alters obtained from ego and from alters themselves. In the first part of the article, a comparison for three characteristics – age, education and occupational status – is provided as well as patterned differences are presented. In the second part, the issue whether the assessment of the strength of homophily depends on the source information about the alters is raised. The differences are present, although they are rather slight. The authors observe greater homophily when they rely on the responses of the ego. Based on the results, recommendations for future research on ego-centred networks are formulated.

Keywords

EN

homophily; social networks; friendship networks; sociological methodology; log-linear models

• Publisher: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology, Polish Academy of Sciences
• Journal: ASK. Research and Methods
• Year: 2021
• Volume: 30
• Issue: 1
• Pages: 3-24

Contributors

author

Kęska Adam

author

Przybysz Dariusz

author

Mach Bogdan W.

References

• Blau, Peter M. 1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. Nowy Jork: Free Press.
• Bisgin, Halil, Nitin Agarwal, and Xiaowei Xu. 2012. “A study of homophily on social media.” World Wide Web 15(2): 213–232, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11280-011-0143-3
• Boutyline, Andrei, and Robb Willer. 2017. “The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks.” Political Psychology 38(3): 551–569, https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337
• Chan, Tak Wing, and John H. Goldthorpe. 2004. “Is there a status order in contemporary British society? Evidence from the occupational structure of friendship.” European Sociological Review 20(5): 383–401, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jch033
• Domański, Henryk, and Dariusz Przybysz. 2012. Sociological Tools. “Friendship patterns and social inequality.” International Journal of Sociology 42(1): 31–59, https://doi.org/10.2753/IJS0020-7659420102
• Domański, Henryk, Zbigniew Sawiński, and Kazimierz M. Słomczyński. 2009. Sociological Tools. Measuring Occupations. New Classifications and Scales. Warszawa: Wydawnictwo Instytutu Filozofii i Socjologii PAN.
• Kadelka, Claus, and Audrey McCombs. 2021. “Effect of homophily and correlation of beliefs on COVID-19 and general infectious disease outbreaks.” PloS One 16(12): e0260973, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0260973
• Karpiński, Zbigniew, and John Skvoretz. 2015. “Rejected by the ‘Other’: Integrating Theory with Method in the Study of Intergroup Association.” Sociological Theory 33 (1): 20–43, https://doi.org/10.1177/0735275115572687
• Khanam, Kazi Zainab, Gautam Srivastava, and Vijay Mago. 2020. “The homophily principle in social network analysis.” Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems 37(4), Article 111.
• Ladhari, Riadh, Elodie Massa, and Hamida Skandrani. 2020. “YouTube vloggers’ popularity and influence: The roles of homophily, emotional attachment, and expertise.” Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services 54: 102027, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.102027
• Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Robert K. Merton. 1954. “Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis.” Pp. 18-66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by Morroe Berger. New York: Van Nostrand.
• Leszczensky, Lars, and Sebastian Pink. 2019. “What drives ethnic homophily? A relational approach on how ethnic identification moderates preferences for same-ethnic friends.” American Sociological Review84 (3): 394–419, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122419846849
• Leszczensky, Lars, and Sebastian Pink. 2020. “Are birds of a feather praying together? Assessing friends’ influence on Muslim youths’ religiosity in Germany.” Social Psychology Quarterly 83(3): 251-271, https://doi.org/10.1177/0190272520936633
• Mach, Bogdan W., Aleksander Manterys, and Ireneusz Sadowski. 2018. Individuals and Their Social Contexts. Warszawa. Institute of Political Studies.
• Mach, Bogdan W., John, E. Jackson, and Ireneusz Sadowski. 2022. “Estimating peer political influence with large N observational data on ego-centered social networks.” Social Networks 70: 198–207, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2022.01.002
• Mare, Robert D. 1991. “Five decades of educational assortative mating.” American Sociological Review 56(1). 15–32, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095670
• Marsden, Peter V. 1988. “Homogeneity in confiding relations.” Social Networks 10(1): 57–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(88)90010-X
• Pohoski, Michał, Kazimierz M. Słomczyński, and Krystyna Milczarek. 1974. Społeczna Klasyfikacja Zawodów. Warszawa: IFiS PAN.
• McPherson, Miller, Lynn Smith-Lovin, James M. Cook. 2001. “Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks.” Annual Review of Sociology (27): 415–444, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415
• Raymo, James M., and Yu Xie. 2000. “Temporal and regional variation in the strength of educational homogamy.” American Sociological Review 65(5): 773–781, https://doi.org/10.2307/2657546
• De Salve, Andrea, Barbara Guidi, Laura Ricci, and Paolo Mori. 2018. “Discovering homophily in online social networks.” Mobile Networks and Applications 23(6): 1715–1726, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11036-018-1067-2
• Skvoretz, John. 1983. “Salience, Heterogeneity, and Consolidation of Parameters: Civilizing Blau’s Primitive Theory.” American Sociological Review 48: 370–85, https://doi.org/10.2307/2095228
• Skvoretz, John. 1991. “Theoretical and methodological models of networks and relations.” Social Networks 13: 275–300, https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(91)90009-I
• Smith, Jeffrey A., Miller McPherson, and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 2014. “Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004.” American Sociological Review 79: 432–456, https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414531776
• Smits, Jeroen, Wout Ultee, and Jan Lammers. 1998. “Educational homogamy in 65 countries: An explanation of differences in openness using country-level explanatory variables.” American Sociological Review 63(2): 264–285, https://doi.org/10.2307/2657327
• Stark, Tobias H., and Volker Stocké. 2021. “Predicting data quality of proxy reports in egocentric network studies.” Social Networks 66: 38–49, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.01.007
• Wimmer, Andreas, and Kevin Lewis. 2010. “Beyond and Below Racial Homophily: ERG Models of a Friendship Network Documented on Facebook.” American Journal of Sociology 116 (2): 583–642, https://doi.org/10.1086/653658