Essay Question: Homophily - What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships (see Appendix C), homophily will be explained and hopefully better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction
Homophily, (self-love) coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily exists in daily life structures: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). It has been stated that exchange of messages between a source and receiver that are similar, homophilous, occur more frequently within human interaction (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971). Homophily is seen in demographics of gender, age, race/ethnicity, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence, aspirations (McPherson et al.,), beliefs, values and social status (Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples (see Appendix C), to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily
Different types of homophily exist, status and value homophily (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily is based on formal, informal or recognised status; and incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values; and involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). Within the concept of liking, techniques such as similarity and familiarity can be ulitised as forms of social persuasion (Sundie, Cialdini, Griskevicius & Kenrick, 2006). Additionally, relationships can also be strengthened by similarity, as it implies possible compatibility with a potential mate (Lehr & Geher, 2006).
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that "similarity begets friendship" (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Additionally, Tarde said “social relations, I repeat, are much closer between individuals who resemble each other in occupation and education” (Tarde, 1903, cited in Rogers & Bhowmik, 1971, p. 525). Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al., p. 417).
Homophily Causes
Geography is the physical foundations in homophily interactions, as individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties which ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. stated organizational foci as another component within homophily, as many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupation have been linked to homophily due to their influence (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that posit people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,). Some of these explanations for homophily are also evident within my personal relationships (see Appendix C).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. One key component of liking someone is based on personality, interests and personal history similarities (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). Reinforcement theory states that people will seek out behaviours that have been rewarded more (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). This can be seen within friendships that confirm each others beliefs. As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske, 2004). Psychologically, within the balance theory people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increased if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). These theories of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. This in relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships (see Appendix C).
Homophily Research
Homophily has been examined in school aged children on the basis of gender and race homophily development. Within Shrum, Cheek Jr and Hunter’s (1988) research, participants included 2,135 school children aged 5 to 17 years from public schools, in grades 3 to 12 from a Southern community in America. Overall the results indicated a gradual decline in gender homophily, as gender segregation decreased as the students progressed through the grades into junior high (Shrum et al.,). Gender segregation reversed once students reached junior high, as within elementary school boys originally showed a greater preference to associate with boys, compared to girls wanting to associate with other girls. Racial segregation was original fairly low but increased rapidly until the students reached junior high, indicating a reversal in racial preference and association once the students reached junior high (Shrum et al.,). The results of this research indicated that homophily in regard to certain dimensions varies depending on age. Furthermore, this illuminates the importance of understanding homophily within schools and the possible changes which can be a byproduct of homophily associations.
Homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor of behaviour compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour associate with likeminded people. In regard to my personal relationships my friends and I would be classified as social drinkers, however all our personalities generally match each other and I presume this is why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life. Homophily has a long history and has been explained by the similarity-attraction hypothesis, reinforcement theory and balance theory. Research has examined homophily for many different variables, however the research within this essay discussed research of racial and gender homophily. Consequently it was found that homophily may not be a stable phenomenon for certain variables. Ultimately, homophily is very prominent within my life (see Appendix C), and no matter how much I try to convince myself otherwise I feel I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a non narcissist way of course.
Word Count: 1500
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Lehr, A. T., & Geher, G. (2006). Differential effects of reciprocity and attitude similarity across long- versus short-term mating contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146 (4), 423-439.
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, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27 (1), 47-63.
Rogers, E. M., & Bhowmik, D. K. (1971). Homophily-heterophily: relational concepts for communication research. Public Opinion Quarterly, 34 (4), 523-538.
Shrum, W., Cheek Jr, J. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school: gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61 (4), 227-239.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Appendix C: Table of Personal Relationships
Appendix D: Others blogs related to similarities and relationships
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Appendix A: Self-Assessment
Appendix A: Self-assessment
1. Theory
I found a few key theories presented within the literature surrounding homophily and discussed these accordingly. I discussed the attraction-similarity hypothesis, explanations for that theory, reinforcement theory and balance theory. I would have liked to discuss these theories in much more depth, however the word limit restricted me. In retrospect, I possibly could have made greater use of appendices in this area, however I did not want to remove important content from my post. I also made links to the theories of homophily in comparison to examples from my own life and this helped show the relevance of the theory to everyday life examples. Therefore I felt I appropriately met this criteria.
2. Research
Research on homophily was very interesting and I found several difference pieces of information. However I had to limit my use of research material in order to fully discuss the research in adequate detail. Even so, I feel that I choose appropriate research to assist my essay on homophily and adequately flushed out the relevant details. I would have liked to include more research into different components of homophily, but again the word limit restricted me. In retrospect I feel I possibly could have made better use of an appendix in this area, but again I did not want to remove important content from the body of my post. Even so, I feel I appropriately met this criteria.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
Flesch Reading Ease: 12.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0
Within my blog I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. Consequently I feel that my blog will reflect appropriate use of APA style referencing. Additionally, I used a table to illustrate my personal relationships in comparson to homophily variables, which I feel assists the overal understanding of homophily. In regard to reader ease I have consciously thought about the layout, and font size and colour to assist reability and consequently I feel I have met this requirement. I consciously aimed to reduce my sentence length and I feel I successfully managed to increase my Flesch Reading Ease rating. Even so, my reading ease was still lower than the recommended rating. I do not know why I consistently get different ratings on the same writing. I feel the low rate is possibily due to the in-text references and sub-headings. Although I periodically checked the reading ease, my overall rating is much lower than I anticipated. Even so, next time I will endevour to check sentence length during the writing process. Furthermore, my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level rating was appropriate. Consequently I feel my written expression was appropriate in regard to the requirements.
4. Online Engagement
In relation to this blog I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community. I have made several posts surrounding different themes within social psychology, and I have listed some of my more significant posts below:
1. Theory
I found a few key theories presented within the literature surrounding homophily and discussed these accordingly. I discussed the attraction-similarity hypothesis, explanations for that theory, reinforcement theory and balance theory. I would have liked to discuss these theories in much more depth, however the word limit restricted me. In retrospect, I possibly could have made greater use of appendices in this area, however I did not want to remove important content from my post. I also made links to the theories of homophily in comparison to examples from my own life and this helped show the relevance of the theory to everyday life examples. Therefore I felt I appropriately met this criteria.
2. Research
Research on homophily was very interesting and I found several difference pieces of information. However I had to limit my use of research material in order to fully discuss the research in adequate detail. Even so, I feel that I choose appropriate research to assist my essay on homophily and adequately flushed out the relevant details. I would have liked to include more research into different components of homophily, but again the word limit restricted me. In retrospect I feel I possibly could have made better use of an appendix in this area, but again I did not want to remove important content from the body of my post. Even so, I feel I appropriately met this criteria.
3. Written Expression
Readability analysis:
Flesch Reading Ease: 12.4
Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level: 12.0
Within my blog I used APA format of referencing both in-text and in my reference list. Consequently I feel that my blog will reflect appropriate use of APA style referencing. Additionally, I used a table to illustrate my personal relationships in comparson to homophily variables, which I feel assists the overal understanding of homophily. In regard to reader ease I have consciously thought about the layout, and font size and colour to assist reability and consequently I feel I have met this requirement. I consciously aimed to reduce my sentence length and I feel I successfully managed to increase my Flesch Reading Ease rating. Even so, my reading ease was still lower than the recommended rating. I do not know why I consistently get different ratings on the same writing. I feel the low rate is possibily due to the in-text references and sub-headings. Although I periodically checked the reading ease, my overall rating is much lower than I anticipated. Even so, next time I will endevour to check sentence length during the writing process. Furthermore, my Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level rating was appropriate. Consequently I feel my written expression was appropriate in regard to the requirements.
4. Online Engagement
In relation to this blog I feel I have participated well as a member of the online community. I have made several posts surrounding different themes within social psychology, and I have listed some of my more significant posts below:
- Blog 2: topic definition
- Witnessing bystander effect
- Reply to comments on bystander effect
- Rags to Riches: A social experiment
- Alcohol and its consequences
- Homophily Blog 2 Plan
Furthermore I have also commented on several other student's blogs, some of which are listed below:
- Erin's Blog - Blog 2 topic: Pets
- Bec's Blog - Bystander Effect
- Mike's Blog - Week 10 Discussion
- Bec's Blog - Bystander Effect (2)
- Clare's Blog - Attachment Styles
- James' Blog - Free Speech
- Alcoholics are not anonymous - Alcohol
- Beck's Blog - Face Symmetry
I really enjoyed this type of interaction and felt that I appropriately participated as a member of the online community. I feel this type of communication can actually assist people in expressing their views in a non-threatening environment which can foster personal development and idea growth. Thank you for the opportunity to use this concept as an assessment tool.
Appendix B: Links of Interest
I have decided to include some interesting websites and other blog's (non Social Psychology students) that I have found specifically on homophily. Although I did not reference to these sites within my blog, I felt they helped me to understand the topic of homophily more appropriately and were a good starting point.
Websites on Homophily:
Other Blogs on Homophily:
Websites on Homophily:
Other Blogs on Homophily:
Appendix C: Table of Personal Relationships
Table 1 Overview of relationships similarity to myself on different variables
Illustrated in Table 1, it is evident that homophily is present within many of my personal relationships. Particularly in reference to status homophily in relation to my immediate family and friends. I have included information on my ex romantic partner to illustrate our differences and provide a possible explanation for the relationship breakdown, which also provides evidence towards the concept of homophily as we were not very similar.
Illustrated in Table 1, it is evident that homophily is present within many of my personal relationships. Particularly in reference to status homophily in relation to my immediate family and friends. I have included information on my ex romantic partner to illustrate our differences and provide a possible explanation for the relationship breakdown, which also provides evidence towards the concept of homophily as we were not very similar.
Appendix D: Others blogs related to similarities and relationships
I have found two different blogs from other students within Social Psychology that have discussed similarities and relationships within their posts. I have added these as extra information for the importance of similarities within relationships.
Appendix E: Glossary of Terms
Reinforcement theory: the proposition that people and animals will perform behaviours that have been rewarded more than they will perform other behaviours
Self-enhancement (motive): the desire to learn favorable or flattering things about the self
Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis: if familiarity underlies attraction, and if the most familiar people are those like us, then people like us are attractive
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Self-enhancement (motive): the desire to learn favorable or flattering things about the self
Similarity-Attraction Hypothesis: if familiarity underlies attraction, and if the most familiar people are those like us, then people like us are attractive
References:
Baumeister, R. F. & Bushman, B. J. (2008). Social psychology and human nature. Belmont, CA:
Thomson Wadsworth.
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
Draft 1: Blog 2: Homophily Essay
Hey Everyone! I just wanted to post my draft up (I am still working on the final thing) - I have to cut back on my words and re-edit and add in some more on research but I thought I would publish it and possibily get some feedback...any feedback/comments welcome! Thanks!!
Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships, homophily will be explained and ultimately better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction (need to possibily re-work)
Homophily, the term coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the adage of “birds of a feather flock together,” which follows the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily is evident within many daily life structures. These can include: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other types of relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). More specifically, homophily theory states that contact between people that are similar will occur more frequently than people who are dissimilar (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, genetic, cultural, behavioural and material information will tend to be contained within a smaller area (McPherson et al.,). Homophily can be seen within demographics of gender, age, race/ethnic, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence and aspirations (McPherson et al.,). Furthermore, research has shown strong evidence for the existence of homophily on a variety of dimensions (Currarini et al.,). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily Types
It has been stated that different types of homophily exist. More specifically status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily is based on the concept on formal, informal or recognised status; where as value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). These two different types of homophily illustrate the deeper idea behind the concept. Many people will say “oh no my partner and I are totally different, opposites attract,” but it has become clearer to me that the underlying concept of homophily goes deeper than recreational or hobby differences between friends, partners or family. It’s not as fickle as ‘he likes football and I like shopping’ it is about strong attitudes and beliefs about world concepts and ideas. If someone disputed something you strongly believed in or fight for, I would highly doubt a strong friendship would blossom without serious effort and negotiation.
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that “similarity begets friendship” (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, within the sociological field, is the classic work of Lazarsfeld and Merton and their study of friendship (McPherson et al.,). Additionally Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Causes
In terms of homophily, it is important to acknowledge possible influences over the idea of liking those similar to us. Geography plays an essential role in homophily interactions as it is common sense that individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity compared to those that are further away (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties. Although geography has been acknowledged as a physical foundation for homophily, family connections ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. discuss organizational foci as another component within homophily, more specifically many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupational have been linked to homophily. This has been likened to the idea that similar people will inhabit similar positions in life and often elicit influence on each other (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, McPherson et al. has stated that a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. Several factors can contribute to liking someone, and one key component is based on similarities, such as: personality, interests and personal history (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske). The principle of the balance theory is that psychological, people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increase if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). Consequently this theory posits that people like to agree with their friends and in reciprocation like to befriend those who confirm and agree with them (Fiske). Both these theory of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. Which is relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships.
Homophily Research
(need to add a little more in here regarding: Differences for gender, age, more research etc)
The theory of homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour are going to look for and association with those who will participate in such behaviour. It seems common interactions illustrate the point that “birds of a feather do really flock together.” In regard to my personal relationships my friends and are would be classified as social drinkers, with the odd binge, however all our styles match each other and I presume this is the basis as to why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life for all people. The concept of homophily rings true within my personal relationships as within my family those who I choose to spend more time with, excluding compulsory family events, are those that are like minded and similar to myself in many ways. These include educational status, deep seeded beliefs and attitudes and overall outlook on life. However within my family, age and gender do not seem to play a key role. In relation to romantic partners it has become clearer to me the extent that homophily exists within my life, as my boyfriend and I were not particularly similar and consequently the relationship ended, once again proving that opposites may attract but eventually may also repel. Finally in relation to my close friends we are very similar in regard to age, education, values and attitudes. I feel this is why our friendship has become strong as it follows the principle of reinforcement theory; those who make us feel good are more likely to elicit greater bonds and overall friendship. Therefore within my life I feel homophily is very prominent and no matter much I try to convince myself otherwise I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a totally non narcissist way of course!
References:
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the compostion of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27(1), 47-63.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices (need to check correct format/spelling for APA)
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Homophily: What is it? Discuss in relation to examples from your own life.
Abstract
Understanding and acknowledging that homophily is an ever present component within daily life is an important realisation. Furthermore, knowledge surrounding homophily history, types, and causes helps to assist understanding of the theories posited to help explain such a phenomenon. Additionally, this aids awareness for the need for research within this field. Using theory and research and examples from personal relationships, homophily will be explained and ultimately better understood. Realising and accepting the psychological characteristics at work within the concept of homophily will assist current and future relationships for not only myself but also those around me.
Introduction (need to possibily re-work)
Homophily, the term coined by Lazarsfeld and Merton applies broadly (Currarini, Jackson & Pin, 2007), to the adage of “birds of a feather flock together,” which follows the principle that according to McPherson, Smith-Lovin and Cook (2001) “similarity breeds connection” (p. 415). Homophily is evident within many daily life structures. These can include: marriage, friendship, co-membership, support, advice, work and other types of relationships (McPherson et al.,). Consequently social constructs can be homogeneous in relation to behavioural, intrapersonal and socio-demographic components (McPherson et al.,). More specifically, homophily theory states that contact between people that are similar will occur more frequently than people who are dissimilar (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, genetic, cultural, behavioural and material information will tend to be contained within a smaller area (McPherson et al.,). Homophily can be seen within demographics of gender, age, race/ethnic, and education and psychological components surrounding attitudes, intelligence and aspirations (McPherson et al.,). Furthermore, research has shown strong evidence for the existence of homophily on a variety of dimensions (Currarini et al.,). Homophily history, theory, types, causes and research will be discussed in conjunction with personal examples to illustrate the concept of homophily in everyday situations and relationships.
Homophily Types
It has been stated that different types of homophily exist. More specifically status homophily and value homophily. Status homophily is based on the concept on formal, informal or recognised status; where as value homophily surrounds attitudes, beliefs and values (Lazarsfeld & Merton, 1954, cited in McPherson et al., 2001). Status homophily incorporates the socio-demographic factors that separate society, such as: sex, age, race, and ethnicity and gained characteristics including education, occupation, religion or behavioural factors (McPherson et al.,). Value homophily involves the internal states which are presumed to elicit influence over future behaviour (McPherson et al.,). These two different types of homophily illustrate the deeper idea behind the concept. Many people will say “oh no my partner and I are totally different, opposites attract,” but it has become clearer to me that the underlying concept of homophily goes deeper than recreational or hobby differences between friends, partners or family. It’s not as fickle as ‘he likes football and I like shopping’ it is about strong attitudes and beliefs about world concepts and ideas. If someone disputed something you strongly believed in or fight for, I would highly doubt a strong friendship would blossom without serious effort and negotiation.
Homophily History
Before the turn of the century, researchers had recognised homophily as the inclination for similarities within friendships (McPherson & Smith-Lovin, 1987). Aristotle once wrote within his Rhetoric and Nichomachean Ethics that people “love those who are like themselves” (Aristotle, 1934, p. 1371, cited in McPherson et al., p. 416). Furthermore, Plato stated within Phaedrus that “similarity begets friendship” (Plato, 1968, p. 837, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, within the sociological field, is the classic work of Lazarsfeld and Merton and their study of friendship (McPherson et al.,). Additionally Lazarsfeld and Merton also quoted the well known expression of “birds of a feather flock together,” which is still used to illustrate the concept of homophily, which they attributed to Robert Burton (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Causes
In terms of homophily, it is important to acknowledge possible influences over the idea of liking those similar to us. Geography plays an essential role in homophily interactions as it is common sense that individuals are more likely to have contact with other individuals that are closer in proximity compared to those that are further away (McPherson et al., 2001). Another possible explanation for the cause of homophily lies within family ties. Although geography has been acknowledged as a physical foundation for homophily, family connections ulitise a biosocial web for connection to those around us that may be similar or diverse (McPherson et al.,). McPherson et al. discuss organizational foci as another component within homophily, more specifically many non kin ties that are created are fostered from work, school and organisational focus (Louch, 2000, cited in McPherson et al.,). Additionally, isomorphic sources of family, informal roles and occupational have been linked to homophily. This has been likened to the idea that similar people will inhabit similar positions in life and often elicit influence on each other (Burt, 1982, cited in McPherson et al.,). Moreover, cognitive processes can be seen to influence homophily attraction through perceived similarity and the tendency for people to associate with those similar to themselves (McPherson et al.,). Additionally, McPherson et al. has stated that a sociology approach known as constructuralism has core components that people who interact are those that are more likely to share knowledge (Carley, 1991, cited in McPherson et al.,). Lastly, selective tie dissolution is posited by McPherson et al. in conjunction with homophily by affecting the probability that a tie will disband. More specifically, the strength of homophily in tie formation and decay has been suggested as a possible factor of the significance of structure foci in the initial tie formation process (McPherson et al.,).
Homophily Theory
In relation to prediction of liking and attraction, similarity stands alone. Several factors can contribute to liking someone, and one key component is based on similarities, such as: personality, interests and personal history (Fiske, 2004). This is also known as the similarity-attraction hypothesis. According to Fiske, at least three models explain the similarity-attraction hypothesis. Firstly, positive reinforcement, the principle that shared attitudes confirms and validates an individual’s beliefs and attitudes (Fiske). As if people agree, the individual’s self esteem is boosted because they are correct, which leads to attraction because an individual will feel good around the other person (Fiske). This idea rests on the concept of self-enhancement which in turn fosters self-esteem building (Fiske). Secondly, the concept of mutual group membership posits that shared attitudes confirm group membership, which encourages belonging to a group and ultimately influences attraction to that group (Fiske). The third model for the similarity-attraction hypothesis is explained by shared attitudes and thus mutual attraction, leading to inferred liking (Fiske). This theory of explanation for homophily can be applied to my personal relationships with many of my friends. I have always maintained my strongest friendships with those similar to me as opposed to those that are vastly different. The need for similar interests and attitudes has always been an important factor within my relationships as it fosters greater interaction and activities possibilities. Furthermore, when friends have similar attitudes and beliefs the interaction is more likely to be positive than friends who have different opinions and consequently clash within daily interactions.
Another important theory within homophily is the balance theory, the general principle that within others and oneself, people prefer and gather cognitive, affective and behavioural consistency (Fiske). The principle of the balance theory is that psychological, people will see similarities in those people if they like each other, and vice versa, likeability will be increase if they are perceived as similar (Fiske). Consequently this theory posits that people like to agree with their friends and in reciprocation like to befriend those who confirm and agree with them (Fiske). Both these theory of homophily can be adequately seen within my personal relationships and naturally greater incentive is available to those with similar ideas or beliefs. Which is relation to myself can be seen within my friends and family relationships.
Homophily Research
(need to add a little more in here regarding: Differences for gender, age, more research etc)
The theory of homophily has been discussed in relation to the ever present issue of drug taking within today’s society. Smoking, alcohol and drug taking behaviour are stated as being similar between friends (Brook, Whiteman & Gordon, 1983; Doreian, 1989, cited in Pearson, Steglich & Snijders, 2006). Consequently homophily has been debated against the concept of assimilation in regard to this type of behaviour (Pearson et al.,). One conclusion of this research was the link between homophily and alcohol consumption. Pearson et al. found that homophily was a more appropriate predictor compared to assimilation. I feel this concept of homophily and alcohol is ever present within today’s society as people who enjoy partaking in such behaviour are going to look for and association with those who will participate in such behaviour. It seems common interactions illustrate the point that “birds of a feather do really flock together.” In regard to my personal relationships my friends and are would be classified as social drinkers, with the odd binge, however all our styles match each other and I presume this is the basis as to why we enjoy each others company, whether alcohol is involved or not.
Conclusion
It seems that homophily is an evident and ever present concept within daily life for all people. The concept of homophily rings true within my personal relationships as within my family those who I choose to spend more time with, excluding compulsory family events, are those that are like minded and similar to myself in many ways. These include educational status, deep seeded beliefs and attitudes and overall outlook on life. However within my family, age and gender do not seem to play a key role. In relation to romantic partners it has become clearer to me the extent that homophily exists within my life, as my boyfriend and I were not particularly similar and consequently the relationship ended, once again proving that opposites may attract but eventually may also repel. Finally in relation to my close friends we are very similar in regard to age, education, values and attitudes. I feel this is why our friendship has become strong as it follows the principle of reinforcement theory; those who make us feel good are more likely to elicit greater bonds and overall friendship. Therefore within my life I feel homophily is very prominent and no matter much I try to convince myself otherwise I will always be more attracted to those similar to myself, in a totally non narcissist way of course!
References:
Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2007). An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities and segregation. Retrieved October 25, 2007 from http://www.stanford.edu/~jacksonm/netminority.pdf
Fiske, S. T. (2004). Social beings: a core motives approach to social psychology. USA: Wiley.
McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations: status distance and the compostion of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52, 370-379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415-444.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. CONNECTIONS, 27(1), 47-63.
Sundie, J. M., Cialdini, R. B., Griskevicius, V., & Kenrick, D. T. (2006). Evolutionary social influence. In M. Schaller, J. A. Simpson, & D. T. Kenrick (Eds.), Evolution and social psychology (pp. 287 - 316). New York: Psychology Press.
Wikipedia. (2007). The free encyclopedia. Retrieved October 28, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page
Appendices (need to check correct format/spelling for APA)
Appendix A: Self Assessment
Appendix B: Links of Interest
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
