Quality & Quantity

, Volume 48, Issue 5, pp 2657–2670 | Cite as

Homophily and heterophily in personal networks. From mutual acquaintance to relationship intensity

  • Carlos Lozares
  • Joan Miquel Verd
  • Irene Cruz
  • Oriol Barranco


This article deals with the analysis of homophily and heterophily in ego-centred networks (personal networks). The analysis takes a dual approach. First it uses the classical definition of homophily (in this article called elementary homophily) to compare mutual ties between groups defined by employment status, age and city of residence. These analyses are then enriched by incorporating the level of affective proximity, thus forming what we have called specific homophily. The analysis of elementary homophily confirms the expected predominance of homophilous relationships over heterophilous ones. The analysis of specific homophily shows that inter-group relationships between close and intimate contacts follow similar patterns, whereas these differ substantially for relationships that are not at all close. The comparison of the two types of homophily shows a correspondence between high values in elementary homophily and high values in close and intimate relationships.


Homophily Heterophily Personal networks Affective proximity  Interaction 



The project CASREDIN (Comparative case study on the mutual influence between social capital and social inclusion and integration, stability, promotion and qualification in employment), whose data were used in this article, was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science within the framework of the Sixth National Plan for Scientific Research, Development and Technological Innovation 2008–2011, with reference CSO2008-01470.


  1. Aldrich, H.E., Elam, A., Reese, P.R.: Strong ties, weak ties and strangers: Do women business owners differ from men in their use of networking to obtain assistance? In: Birley, S., MacMillan, I. (eds.) Entrepreneurship in a Global Context, pp. 1–25. Routledge, London (1996)Google Scholar
  2. Allan, G.A.: A Sociology of Friendship and Kinship. G. Allen & Unwin, London (1979)Google Scholar
  3. Bidart, C.: L’amitié, les amis, leur histoire. Représentations et récits. Sociétés Contemporaines 5, 21–42 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Burt, R.S.: Structural holes versus network closure as social capital. In: Lin, N., Cook, K., Burt, R.S. (eds.) Social Capital: Theory and Research, pp. 31–56. Aldine de Gruyter, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  5. Burt, R.S.: Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge (1992)Google Scholar
  6. Burt, R.S.: The gender of social capital. Ration. Soc. 10, 5–47 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Burt, R.S.: The network structure of social capital. Res. Organ. Behav. 22, 345–423 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Campbell, K.E.: Gender differences in job-related networks. Work Occup. 15, 179–200 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coenen-Hunther, : Relations d’amitié, mobilité spatiale et mobilité sociale. Espaces et Sociétés 54—-55, 50–65 (1989)Google Scholar
  10. Cohen, J.: Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociol. Educ. 50(4), 227–241 (1977)Google Scholar
  11. Davis, K.E., Todd, M.J.: Friendship and love relationships. In: Davis, K.E. (ed.) Advances in Descriptive Psychology, pp. 79–122. JAI Press, Greenwich (1982)Google Scholar
  12. Duncan, O.D., Featherman, D.L., Duncan, B.: Sociometric Background and Achievement. Seminar, New York (1972)Google Scholar
  13. Eisenstadt, S.N., Roniger, L.: Patrons, Clients and Friends; Interpersonal Relations and the Structure of Trust in Society. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Feld, S.: The focused organization of social ties. Am. J. Sociol. 86(5), 1015–1035 (1981)Google Scholar
  15. Ferrand, A.: Amis et associés. CESOL, Fasc. 1, 2, 6 (1985–1986).Google Scholar
  16. Ferrand, A.: Connaissances passagères et vieux amis, les durées de vie des relations interpersonnelles. Revue Suisse de Sociologie 2, 431–439 (1989)Google Scholar
  17. Ferrand, A.: L’inverse de l’ordre; essai d’interprétation d’un type d’amitié., n.p., LASMAS-CNRS (1990).Google Scholar
  18. Festinger, L.: A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press, Stanford (1957)Google Scholar
  19. Fischer, C.S.: To Dwell Among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1982)Google Scholar
  20. Granovetter, M.S.: The strength of weak ties. Am. J. Sociol. 78(6), 1360–1380 (1973)Google Scholar
  21. Hamm, J.V.: Do birds of a feather flock together? Individual, contextual, and relationship bases for African American, Asian American, and European American Adolescents’ selection of similar friends. Dev. Psychol. 36(2), 209–219 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ibarra, H.: Race, opportunity, and diversity of social circles in managerial networks. Acad. Manag. J. 38(3), 673–703 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ibarra, H., Andrews, S.B.: Power, social influence, and sense making: Effects of network centrality and proximity on employee perceptions. Adm. Sci. Quart. 38(2), 277–303 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kalmijn, M.: Intermarriage and homogamy: Causes, patterns and trends. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24, 395–421 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kossinets, G., Watts, D.J.: Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. AJS 115(2), 405–450 (2009)Google Scholar
  26. Laumann, E.O.: Bonds of Pluralism: The Form and Substance of Urban Social Networks. Wiley, New York (1973)Google Scholar
  27. Lazarsfeld, P.F., Merton, R.K.: Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger, M., Abel, T., Page, C.H. (eds.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society, pp. 18–66. Octagon Books, New York (1954)Google Scholar
  28. Leenders, R.T.: Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Math. Sociology 21(1–2), 133–148 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lin, N., Ensel, N., Vaughn, J.C.: Social resources and strength of ties: Structural factors in occupational status attainment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46, 393–405 (1981a)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin, N., Ensel, W.M., Vaughn, J.C.: Social resources and occupational status attainment. Soc. Forces 59, 81–1163 (1981b)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loomis, C.P.: Political and occupational cleavages in a Hanoverian village. Sociometry 9, 316–333 (1946)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lott, A.J., Lott, B.E.: Group cohesiveness, communication level, and conformity. J. Abnorm. Soc. Psychol. 61, 408–412 (1961)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lozares, C., Verd, J.M., López-Roldán, P., Martí, J., Molina, J.L.: Cohesión, Vinculación e Integración sociales en el marco del Capital social. REDES-Revista hispana para el análisis de redes sociales. 20 1. (2011). Accessed 24 Oct 2012
  34. Marsden, P.V.: Core discussion networks of Americans. Am. Sociol. Rev. 52, 122–313 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mayhew, B. H., Mcpherson, J. M., Rotolo, T., Smith-Lovin, L., Carolina, S., McPherson, J. M.: Sex and race homogeneity in natural occurring groups. Soc. Forces 74(1), 15–52 (1995)Google Scholar
  36. McPherson, J.M., Smith-Lovin, L., Cook, J.: Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 27, 415–444 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mollica, K., Gray, B., Trevino, K.: Racial homophily and its persistence in newcomers’ social networks. Organ. Sci. 14(2), 123–136 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Monge, P.R., Contractor, N.: Theories of Communication Networks. Oxford University Press, Oxford (2003)Google Scholar
  39. Mouw, T.: Social capital and finding a job: Do contacts matter? Am. Sociol. Rev. 68, 868–988 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Park, R.E., Burgess, E.W.: Introduction to the Science of Sociology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1921)Google Scholar
  41. Pearson, M., Steglich, Ch., Snijders, T.: Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. Connections 27(1), 47–63 (2006)Google Scholar
  42. Portes, A., Sensenbrenner, J.: Embeddedness and immigration: Notes on the social determinants of economic action. AJS 98, 1320–1350 (1993)Google Scholar
  43. Requena, F.: Redes sociales y mecanismos de acceso al mercado del trabajo. Sociología del, Trabajo 11, 117–140 (1990–1991)Google Scholar
  44. Requena, F.: Amigos y redes sociales. Elementos para una sociologia de la amistad. CIS-Siglo XXI, Madrid (1994a)Google Scholar
  45. Requena, F.: Redes de amistad, felicidad y familia. REIS 66, 73–89 (1994b)Google Scholar
  46. Shrum, W., Cheek, N.H., Hunter, S.M.: Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Soc. Educ. 61, 227–239 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Simmel, G., Simmel, G.: The strange. In: Levine, D. (ed.) Simmel on Individuality and Social Forms: Selected Writings, pp. 43–49. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1971)Google Scholar
  48. Verbrugge, L.M.: The structure of adult friendship choices. Soc. Forces 56(2), 576–97 (1977)Google Scholar
  49. Verbrugge, L.M.: A research note on adult friendship contact: A dyadic perspective. Soc. Forces 62, 78–83 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wellman, B.: The school child’s choice of companions. J. Educ. Res. 14, 126–132 (1929)Google Scholar
  51. Wellman, B.: Are personal communities local? A dumptarian reconsideration. Soc. Netw. 18, 347–354 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Werner, C., Parmelee, P.: Similarity of activity preferences among friends: Those who play together stay together social. Psychol. Quart. 42(1), 62–66 (1979)Google Scholar
  53. Yuan, Y.C., Gay, G.: Homophily of network ties and bonding and bridging. Social capital in computer-mediated distributed teams. J. Comput. Mediat. Commun. 11(4), 11 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Carlos Lozares
    • 1
  • Joan Miquel Verd
    • 1
  • Irene Cruz
    • 1
  • Oriol Barranco
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Sociology, Centre d’Estudis Sociològics sobre la Vida Quotidiana i el Treball (QUIT)Institut d’Estudis del Treball (IET), Universitat Autònoma of BarcelonaBarcelonaSpain

Personalised recommendations