Literature DB >> 19069052

Gender and homophily: differences in male female association in Blau space.

Matthew E Brashears1.   

Abstract

Homophily, the tendency for similar individuals to associate, is one of the most robust findings in social science. Despite this robustness, we have less information about how personal characteristics relate to differences in the strength of homophily. Nor do we know much about the impact of personal characteristics on judgments of relative dissimilarity. The present study compares the strength of age, religious, and educational homophily for male and female non-kin ties using network data from the 1985 General Social Survey. It also compares the patterning of ties among dissimilar alters for both sexes. The results of this exploratory effort indicate that males and females are almost equally homophilous, although religious homophily exerts a stronger influence on females than males. Males and females do, however, differ in their tendency to associate with certain types of dissimilar alters. Education is essentially uniform for both sexes, religious difference is more important for females than males, and those over sixty or under thirty are less different from the middle categories of age for females than for males. The results suggest that males are able to bridge larger areas of social space in their non-kin interpersonal networks and likely accumulate greater social capital as a consequence.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19069052     DOI: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.08.004

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Res        ISSN: 0049-089X


  5 in total

1.  The 'friendship dynamics of religion,' or the 'religious dynamics of friendship'? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools.

Authors:  Jacob E Cheadle; Philip Schwadel
Journal:  Soc Sci Res       Date:  2012-04-01

2.  Stop using anecdotal evidence in conversations about gender.

Authors:  Juliana Hipólito; Luisa Maria Diele-Viegas
Journal:  Nature       Date:  2022-02-15       Impact factor: 49.962

3.  Impact of Survey Design on Estimation of Exponential-Family Random Graph Models from Egocentrically-Sampled Data.

Authors:  Pavel N Krivitsky; Martina Morris; Michał Bojanowski
Journal:  Soc Networks       Date:  2021-06-12

4.  Neural bases of recommendations differ according to social network structure.

Authors:  Matthew Brook O'Donnell; Joseph B Bayer; Christopher N Cascio; Emily B Falk
Journal:  Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci       Date:  2017-01-01       Impact factor: 3.436

5.  Gender Differences in Social Support Received by Informal Caregivers: A Personal Network Analysis Approach.

Authors:  María Nieves Rodríguez-Madrid; María Del Río-Lozano; Rosario Fernandez-Peña; Jaime Jiménez-Pernett; Leticia García-Mochón; Amparo Lupiañez-Castillo; María Del Mar García-Calvente
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2018-12-31       Impact factor: 3.390

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.