Homophily

Various Perspectives on Homophily

Some researchers categorize homophily as having two components: baseline and inbreeding. The baseline component is determined by the statistical chance of homophilous network ties being created by random [Page 383]interaction. The inbreeding component is the portion of homophilous ties that are above random statistical chance. These component breakdowns closely match the opportunity and motivation distinction. Baseline homophily can be thought of as the component of homophily that occurs due to the opportunity to interact with similar others. Inbreeding homophily explains the portion that is attributed to psychological motivation and desire to build similar ties, regardless of opportunities presented.

The lenses of social identity and self-categorization theories provide an additional perspective on homophily. They suggest that individuals classify themselves and others into social categories using similarities to maximize out-group differences in an effort to improve social identity. This leads people who are similar in a variety of demographic characteristics to interact more often. Such similarities are also thought to be of higher quality because of the shared values and past experiences demographic similarity can provide. However, over time, interaction leads people to uncover deeper similarities than mere objective demographic group categorization can provide, such as more subjective attitudinal and behavioral similarities. As such, behavioral characteristics, values, and attitudes also form the basis of homophily. In fact, such subjective similarities may lead to stronger connections over time regardless of objective similarities.

Research suggests that due to homophily, members of smaller demographic groups, such as racial minorities or women in a white, male-dominated workforce, have more limited intraorganizational social networks. These limited homophilous networks may serve as a structural barrier for minorities in the workplace, giving minorities fewer opportunities for informal social interaction with coworkers and management. In fact, women have been shown to build different network structures than men by getting social support from other women and instrumental support from cross-gender ties, while men focus more on homophilous ties for both types of support.

Religion-based homophily generally is not as strong as race-based homophily but appears in certain contexts. However, it is more likely for race to overpower religion as a basis of similarity. Age-based homophily is also well documented. In fact, as age differences increase between two individuals, they become less likely to have a network tie. However, after retirement age, this effect is reduced, suggesting that other types of similarity overpower age similarity as a basis for the creation of homophilous ties in the later stages of life.

...