Advertisement

Political Homophily on the Web

  • Robert Ackland
  • Jamsheed Shorish

Abstract

Homophily is a central concept within sociological research and describes the preference of actors in social networks to form ties on the basis of shared attributes, such as gender and race, as well as subjective characteristics such as political affiliations and desires for certain consumer goods. The study of homophily can provide important insights into the diffusion of information and behaviours within a society and has been particularly useful in understanding online community formation given the self-selected nature of the information consumed.

Keywords

Social Network Virtual World Political Preference Friendship Nomination Triadic Closure 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ackland, R. (2011) ‘WWW Hyperlink Networks’, in D. Hansen, B. Shneiderman and M. Smith (eds.), Analyzing Social Media Networks with Node XL: Insights from a Connected World (Burlington, MA: Morgan-Kaufmann), pp. 181–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ackland, R. and Gibson, R.K. (2013) ‘Hyperlinks and Networked Communication: A Comparative Study of Political Parties Online’, International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 16 (3), special issue on Computational Social Science: Research Strategies, Design & Methods, 231–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ackland, R. and O’Neil, M. (2011) ‘Online Collective Identity: The Case of the Environmental Movement’, Social Networks, 33, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Ackland, R. and Shorish, J. (2009) ‘Network Formation in the Political Blogosphere: An Application of Agent Based Simulation and e-Research Tools’, Computational Economics, 34 (4), 383–398.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Adamic, L. and Glance, N. (2005) ‘The Political Blogosphere and the 2004 US Election: Divided They Blog’, in KDD ‘05: The Eleventh ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. Chicago, IL, 21–24 August, pp. 36–43.Google Scholar
  6. Alford, R., Funk, C. and Hibbing, J. (2005) ‘Are Political Orientations Genetically Transmitted?’, American Political Science Review, 99, 153–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alford, J.R., Hatemi, P.K., Hibbing, J.R., Martin, N.G. and Eaves, L.J. (2011) ‘The Politics of Mate Choice’, The Journal of Politics, 73, 362–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Aral, S., Muchnik, L. and Sundararajan, A. (2009) ‘Distinguishing Influence-based Contagion from Homophily-driven Diffusion in Dynamic Networks’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (51), 21544–21549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bastian, M., Heymann, S. and Jacomy, M. (2009) ‘Gephi: An Open Source Software for Exploring and Manipulating Networks’, in International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, P. (1977) Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure(New York: Free Press).Google Scholar
  11. Burt, R. (2011) Structural Holes in Virtual Worlds (Chicago: Booth School of Business, University of Chicago, Working Paper).Google Scholar
  12. Castells, M. (1996) The Rise of the Network Society. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture, Volume I. (London: Blackwell).Google Scholar
  13. Centola, D. (2010) ‘The Spread of Behavior in an Online Social Network Experiment’, Science, 329, 1194–1197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Currarini, S., Jackson, M.O. and Pin, P. (2009) ‘An Economic Model of Friendship: Homophily, Minorities and Segregation’, American Economic Review, 77 (4), 1003–1045.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, J.A. (1963) ‘Structural Balance, Mechanical Solidarity, and Interpersonal Relations’, American Journal of Sociology, 68, 444–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Feld, S.L. (1981) ‘The Focused Organization of Social Ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 86 (5), 1015–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gaines, B. and Mondak, J. (2009) ‘Typing Together? Clustering of Ideological Types in Online Social Networks’, Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 6 (3–4), 216–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hargittai, E., Gallo, J. and Kane, M. (2008) ‘Cross-ideological Discussions Among Conservative and Liberal Bloggers’, Public Choice, 134, 67–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huber, G. and Malhotra, N. (2012) ‘Political Sorting in Social Relationships’, Working Paper, available at: http://huber.research.yale.edu/materials/38_paper. pdf, date accessed 14 April 2013.Google Scholar
  20. Kydros, D., Magoulios, G. and Trevlakis, N. (2012) ‘A Network Analysis of the Greek Parliament and some Socio-Economic Issues’, MIBES Transactions, 6, 27–38.Google Scholar
  21. Lazarsfeld, P.F. and Merton, R.K. (1954) ‘Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis’, in M. Berger (ed.), Freedom and Control in Modern Society (New York: Van Nostrand), pp. 18–66.Google Scholar
  22. Lazer, D., Rubineau, B., Katz, N., Chetkovich, C. and Neblo, M. (2008) Networks and Political Attitudes: Structure, Influence, and Co-evolution (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Working Paper rwp 08–044).Google Scholar
  23. Lusher, D. and Ackland, R. (2011) ‘A Relational Hyperlink Analysis of an Online Social Movement’, Journal of Social Structure, 11, available at: http://www.cmu.edu/joss/content/articles/volume11/Lusher/.Google Scholar
  24. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, M. and Cook, J.M. (2001) ‘Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mitchell, A. and Hitlin, P. (2013) ‘Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion’, Pew Research Center Report, available at: http://www.pewresearch.org/2013/03/04/twitter-reaction-to-events-often-at-odds-with-overall-public-opinion/, date accessed 14 April 2013.Google Scholar
  26. Mouw, T. and Entwisle, B. (2006) ‘Residential Segregation and Interracial Friendship in Schools’, American Journal of Sociology, 112 (2), 394–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Noel, H. and Nyhan, B. (2011) ‘The “Unfriending” Problem: The Consequences of Homophily in Friendship Retention for Causal Estimates of Social Influence’, Social Networks, 33 (3), 211–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone (New York: Simon & Schuster).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. R Development Core Team (2011) R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing (Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing).Google Scholar
  30. Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y. and Lusher, D. (2007) ‘An Introduction to Exponential Random Graph (p*) Models for Social Networks’, Social Networks, 29 (2), 173–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stray, J. (2013) ‘The Whole Dysfunctional National Conversation About Guns — on Twitter …in One Interactive Graph’, The Atlantic, 26 February 2013, available at: http://theatlantic.com, date accessed 5 April 2013.Google Scholar
  32. Sunstein, C. (2001) Republic.com (Princeton: Princeton University Press).Google Scholar
  33. Weare, C., Musso, J. and Jun, K-N. (2009) ‘Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations’, Social Forces, 88 (1), 147–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams, D. (2010) “The Mapping Principle, and a Research Framework for Virtual Worlds”, Communication Theory, 20 (4), 451–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wimmer, A. and Lewis, K. (2010) ‘Beyond and Below Racial Homophily: ERG Models of a Friendship Network Documented on Facebook’, American Journal of Sociology, 116, 583–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Robert Ackland and Jamsheed Shorish 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert Ackland
  • Jamsheed Shorish

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations