Adolescent Networks

Peer Influence in Homogeneity

While in most pairs of connected adolescents—or dyads—each will have some influence over the other (bidirectional influence), their mutual influence may be equal (symmetric) or unequal (asymmetric). In the extreme case of asymmetric influence, it may flow in only one direction, in which case the influence is said to be unidirectional. However, influence in adolescent networks is by no means limited to direct dyadic ties. Each member of the entire network potentially influences each of its members, with the strength of the influence of any member on any other member attenuated by the distance (number of intermediaries) between them and positively associated with the strength of the ties making up the path between the sender and receiver.

Homophily is common in adolescent networks, where peer influence and preferential association are mutually reinforcing.

The outcome of peer influence is to make the recipient of influence more similar—in attitude, behavior, or condition—to the sender of the influence. Thus, adolescent networks tend to become increasingly homogeneous over time. More precisely, cliques tend to form within networks. A clique is a subset of a network that is characterized by relatively dense and strong ties among its members. Different cliques are interconnected within the larger network by weaker and sparser ties. Members of a clique tend to be relatively similar to one another: the dense, strong ties among clique members allow the unimpeded flow of mutual influence.

Homogeneity in adolescent networks, and especially cliques, is due not only to peer influence but also to homophily, also known as selection or preferential association: the tendency to prefer interaction with people who are similar to oneself, the extreme obverse of which [Page 4]is xenophobia. Adolescents are strongly homophilous with respect to such attributes as gender, age, and ethnicity. Homophily and peer influence are mutually reinforcing: adolescent networks tend to add new members who are similar to existing members and to shed members who are different; meanwhile, members are subject to mutual influence to become more similar to one another. Similarly, within the larger network, ties are formed or strengthened between members who are similar and weakened or broken between members who are dissimilar; this leads to the increasing differentiation of internally homogeneous cliques and their decreasing external connectedness with each other.

...