Computational and Mathematical Organization Theory

, Volume 17, Issue 4, pp 318–343

Leaving us in tiers: can homophily be used to generate tiering effects?

  • Brian R. Hirshman
  • Jesse St. Charles
  • Kathleen M. Carley
Article

Abstract

Substantial evidence indicates that our social networks are divided into tiers in which people have a few very close social support group, a larger set of friends, and a much larger number of relatively distant acquaintances. Because homophily—the principle that like seeks like—has been suggested as a mechanism by which people interact, it may also provide a mechanism that generates such frequencies and distributions. However, our multi-agent simulation tool, Construct, suggests that a slight supplement to a knowledge homophily model—the inclusion of several highly salient personal facts that are infrequently shared—can more successfully lead to the tiering behavior often observed in human networks than a simplistic homophily model. Our findings imply that homophily on both general and personal facts is necessary in order to achieve realistic frequencies of interaction and distributions of interaction partners. Implications of the model are discussed, and recommendations are provided for simulation designers seeking to use homophily models to explain human interaction patterns.

Keywords

Homophily Social group size Tiering Agent-based simulation Dynamic network analysis 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Agneessens F, Waege H, Lievens J (2006) Diversity in social support by role relations: a typology. Soc Netw 28:427–41 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anderson JR (1983) The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  3. Anderson B, Butts C, Carley K (1999a) The interaction of size and density with graph-level indices. Soc Netw 21:239–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson C, Wasserman S, Crouch B (1999b) A P* Primer: logit models for social networks. Soc Netw 21:37–66 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein J, Cohen M (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(2):123–142 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychol 3:265–99 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Barabási A-L, Reka A (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–12 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnlund D, Harland C (1963) Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication networks. Sociometry 26:467–79 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Borgatti S, Foster P (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29:991–1013 Google Scholar
  10. Borgatti S, Carley K, Krackhardt D (2006) On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Soc Netw 28:124–36 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burt R (1992) The social structure of competition. In: Structural holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–89 Google Scholar
  12. Butts C (2002) Spatial models of large-scale interpersonal networks. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  13. Carley K (1986) An approach for relating social structure to cognitive structure. J Math Sociol 12:137–89 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Carley K (1991) A theory of group stability. Am Soc Rev 56:331–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carley K (1995) Computational organization theory. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:39–56 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carley K (1999) On the evolution of social and organizational networks. In: Special issue of research in the sociology of organizations on networks in and around organizations, pp 3–30 Google Scholar
  17. Carley K (2003) Dynamic network analysis. In: Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: workshop summary and papers, Washington, DC, pp 133–145 Google Scholar
  18. Carley K, Martin M, Hirshman B (2009) The etiology of social change. Top Cogn Sci 1(4):621–650 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Christakis N, Fowler J (2007) The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 357:370–9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Cowan R, Jonard N (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. J Econ Dyn Control 28:1557–75 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, London Google Scholar
  22. Dunbar RIM (1993) Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size, and language in humans. Behav Brain Sci 16:681–735 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Dunbar RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol 6:178–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunbar RIM, Spoors M (1995) Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nat 6:273–90 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Epstein J, Axtell R (1999) Growing artificial societies. MIT Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  26. Freeman L (1979) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Friedkin N, Johnsen E (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Group Process 16:1–29 Google Scholar
  28. Goldstein J (1999) Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence 1:49–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Harrison D, Price K, Bell M (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group cohesion. Acad Manag J 41:96–107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Hays R, Oxley D (1986) Social network development and function during a life transition. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:305–13 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2003) Social network size in human. Human Nat 14:53–72 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Hirshman B, Carley K (2007a) Specifying agents in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  34. Hirshman B, Carley K (2007b) Specifying networks in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  35. Hirshman B, Carley K (2008) Modeling information access in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  36. Hirshman B, St. Charles J (2009) Simulating emergent multi-tiered social ties. In: Proceedings of the 2009 human behavior and computational intelligence modeling conference, Oak Ridge National Laboratory Google Scholar
  37. Hirshman B, Martin M, Bigrigg M, Carley K (2008a) The impact of educational interventions by socio-demographic attribute. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  38. Hirshman B, Martin M, Birukou A, Bigrigg M, Carley K (2008b) The impact of educational interventions on real & stylized cities. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh Google Scholar
  39. Ilgen D, Hulin C (2000) Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: the third scientific discipline. American Psychological Association, Washington CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kilduff M, Krackhardt D (1994) Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad Manag J 27:87–108 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Krackhardt D, Carley K (1998) A PCANS model of structure in organization. In: Proceedings of the 1998 international symposium on command and control research and technology, Monterey, CA Google Scholar
  42. Laird J, Congdon CB (2006) The soar user’s manual, version 8.6.3. University of Michigan Google Scholar
  43. Lawler E (1999) Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annu Rev Sociol 25:217–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lazarsfeld P, Merton R (1954) Friendship as social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page C (eds) Freedom and control in modern society. Van Nostrand, Princeton Google Scholar
  45. Leskovec J, Horvitz E (2008) Planetary-scale view on a large instant-messaging network. In: Proceedings of the world wide web 2008, Beijing, China Google Scholar
  46. Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C (2005) Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters, and possible explanations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on knowledge and data discovery, Chicago, IL Google Scholar
  47. Leskovec J, Lang K, Dasgupta A, Mahoney M (2008) Statistical properties of community structure in large social and informational networks. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on the world wide web conference, Beijing, China Google Scholar
  48. Levine J, Moreland R (1998) Small groups. In: Gilbert SFD, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. Oxford University Press, London Google Scholar
  49. Lopez L, Sanjuan M (2002) Relation between structure and size in social networks. Phys Rev E 65:036107 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Marsden P (1987) Core discussion networks of Americans. Am Sociol Rev 52:122–31 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Marsden P (1990) Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol 16:435–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook J (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Milgram S (1967) The small world problem. Psychol Today 2:60–7 Google Scholar
  54. Mniszewski S, Del Valle S, Stroud P, Riese J, Sydoriak S (2008) EpiSimS simulation of a multi-component strategy for pandemic influenza. In: Proceedings of the 2008 spring simulation multiconference, Ottawa, Canada. ACM, New York Google Scholar
  55. Newcomb T (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New York CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Newell A (1994) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  57. Newman M, Park J (2003) Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys Rev E 68:036122 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Olfati-Saber R (2006) Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory. IEEE Trans Autom Control 51:401–20 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Rogers E (1995) Diffusion of innovation. Free Press, New York Google Scholar
  60. Steglich C, Snijders T, West P (2006) Applying Sienna: an illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents’ friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology 2:48–56 Google Scholar
  61. Schreiber C, Siddhartha S, Kathleen C (2004) Construct—a multi-agent network model for the co-evolution of agents and socio-cultural environments. Technical Report ID CMU-ISRI-04-109. Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA Google Scholar
  62. Stiller J, Dunbar RIM (2007) Perspective taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Soc Netw 29:93–104 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Thiriot S, Kant J-D (2008) Generate country-scale networks of interaction from scattered statistics. In: Proceedings of the fifth conference of the european social simulation association, Brescia, Italy Google Scholar
  64. Turner J, Oakes P, Haslam SA, McGarty C (1994) Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20:454–63 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Valente T (1995) Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton Press, Cresskill Google Scholar
  66. Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Google Scholar
  67. Wellman B (1996) Are personal communities local: a dumptarian reconsideration. Soc Netw 18:347–54 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wellman B, Wortley S (1985) Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. Health Educ Behav 12:5–22 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Wong LH, Pattison P, Robins G (2006) A spatial model for social networks. Physica A 360:99–120 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Zhou WX, Sornette D, Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2005) Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proc R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci 272:439–44 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brian R. Hirshman
    • 1
  • Jesse St. Charles
    • 1
  • Kathleen M. Carley
    • 1
  1. 1.Computation, Organization and Society Program, School of Computer ScienceCarnegie Mellon UniversityPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations