Skip to main content Accessibility help

Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks*

  • PER BLOCK (a1) and THOMAS GRUND (a2)


Homophily—the tendency for individuals to associate with similar others—is one of the most persistent findings in social network analysis. Its importance is established along the lines of a multitude of sociologically relevant dimensions, e.g. sex, ethnicity and social class. Existing research, however, mostly focuses on one dimension at a time. But people are inherently multidimensional, have many attributes and are members of multiple groups. In this article, we explore such multidimensionality further in the context of network dynamics. Are friendship ties increasingly likely to emerge and persist when individuals have an increasing number of attributes in common? We analyze eleven friendship networks of adolescents, draw on stochastic actor-oriented network models and focus on the interaction of established homophily effects. Our results indicate that main effects for homophily on various dimensions are positive. At the same time, the interaction of these homophily effects is negative. There seems to be a diminishing effect for having more than one attribute in common. We conclude that studies of homophily and friendship formation need to address such multidimensionality further.



Hide All

The collection of the DyNet data used in this research was supported by Award Number R01HD052887 from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute Of Child Health & Human Development or the National Institutes of Health. The collection of the ASSIST data used in this research was funded by the project “Social Network Analysis of Peers and Smoking in Adolescence (SNAPS)” funded by the Medical Research Council of the UK.



Hide All
Alexander, C., Piazza, M., Mekos, D., & Valente, T. (2001). Peers, schools, and adolescent cigarette smoking. Journal of Adolescent Health, 29 (1), 2230.
Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and heterogeneity : a primitive theory of social structure. New York, London: Free Press; Collier Macmillan.
Blau, P. M., & Schwartz, J. E. (1984). Crosscutting social circles : testing a macrostructural theory of intergroup relations. Orlando: Academic Press.
Burk, W. J., Steglich, C. E. G., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-oriented models for co-evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 31 (4), 397404.
Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural Holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
Checkley, M., & Steglich, C. (2007). Partners in power: job mobility and dynamic deal-making. European Management Review, 4 (3), 161171.
Cohen, J. M. (1977). Sources of peer group homogeneity. Sociology of Education, 50 (4), 227241.
Davis, J. A. (1970). Clustering and hierarchy in interpersonal relations: Testing two graph theoretical models on 742 sociomatrices. American Sociological Review, 35 (5), 843851.
De Nooy, W. (2002). The dynamics of artistic prestige. Poetics, 30 (3), 147167.
Feld, S. L. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology, 86 (5), 10151035.
Feld, S. L. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review, 47 (6), 797801.
Felmlee, D., Sprecher, S., & Bassin, E. (1990). The dissolution of intimate relationships - a hazard model. Social Psychology Quarterly, 53 (1), 1330.
Festinger, L., & Hutte, H. A. (1954). An experimental investigation of the effect of unstable interpersonal relations in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 49 (4), 513522.
Fischer, C. S. (1977). Networks and places : social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.
Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46 (1), 103125.
Granovetter, M. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 13601380.
Grund, T., & Densley, J. (2012). Ethnic heterogeneity in the activity and structure of a black street gang. European Journal of Criminology, 9 (4), 388406.
Hamm, J. V. (2000). Do birds of a feather flock together? The variable bases for African American, Asian American, and European American adolescents' selection of similar friends. Developmental Psychology, 36 (2), 209219.
Hogg, M. A. (2006). Social identity theory. In Burke, P. J. (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 111136). Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Huston, T. L., & Levinger, G. (1978). Interpersonal attraction and relationships. Annual Review of Psychology, 29, 115156.
Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns - sex-differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37 (3), 422447.
Kalmijn, M. (1998). Intermarriage and homogamy: causes, patterns, trends. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 395421.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships. American Journal of Sociology, 84 (2), 427436.
Knecht, A., Snijders, T. A. B., Baerveldt, C., Steglich, C. E. G., & Raub, W. (2010). Friendship and Delinquency: Selection and Influence Processes in Early Adolescence. Social Development, 19 (3), 494514.
Laumann, E. O. (1973). Bonds of pluralism : the form and substance of urban social networks. New York, London: John Wiley and Sons.
Lazarsfeld, P. F. & Merton, R. K. (1954). 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. 1866). New York: Van Nostrand.
Leenders, R. (1996). Evolution of friendship and best friendship choices. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 21 (1–2), 133148.
Lewis, K., Gonzalez, M., & Kaufman, J. (2012). Social selection and peer influence in an online social network. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 109 (1), 6872.
Lindenberg, S. (2009). Why framing should be all about the impact of goals on cognitions and evaluations. In Hill, P., Kalter, F., Kroneberg, C., & Schnell, R. (Eds.), Hartmut Essers Erklärende Soziologie (pp. 5379). Frankfurt/Main: Campus.
Louch, H. (2000). Personal network integration: transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Social Networks, 22 (1), 4564.
Marsden, P. V. (1987). Core discussion networks of Americans. American Sociological Review, 52 (1), 122131.
McPherson, J. M., & Smithlovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary organizations - status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American Sociological Review, 52 (3), 370379.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415444.
Pearson, M., & Michell, L. (2000). Smoke rings: social network analysis of friendship groups, smoking and drug-taking. Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy, 7 (1), 2137.
Pearson, M., Steglich, C., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2006). Homophily and assimilation among sport-active adolescent substance users. Connections, 27 (1), 4763.
Preciado, P., Snijders, T. A. B., Burk, W. J., Stattin, H., & Kerr, M. (2012). Does proximity matter? Distance dependence of adolescent friendships. Social Networks, 34 (1), 1831.
Quillian, L., & Campbell, M. E. (2003). Beyond black and white: The present and future of multiracial friendship segregation. American Sociological Review, 68 (4), 540566.
Ripley, R. M., Snijders, T. A. B., Boda, Z., Vörös, A. and Preciado, P. (2014). Manual for RSiena. Oxford: University of Oxford, Department of Statistics; Nuffield College.
Schaefer, D. R. (2010). A configurational approach to homophily using lattice visualization. Connections, 30 (2), 2140.
Schaefer, D. R., Kornienko, O., & Fox, A. M. (2011). Misery does not love company. American Sociological Review, 76 (5), 764785.
Shrum, W., Cheek, N. H., & Hunter, S. M. (1988). Friendship in school - gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education, 61 (4), 227239.
Simmel, G., ed. Wolff, K. H. (1950). The sociology of George Simmel: New York: Free press.
Smith-Lovin, L., & McPherson, J. M. (1993). You are who you know: a network perspective on gender. In England, P. (Ed.), Theory on gender/Feminism on theory (pp. 223–51). New York: Aldine.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. Sociological Methodology 2001, 31, 361395.
Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for longitudinal network data. In Carrington, P., Scott, J., & Wasserman, S. (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis (Ch. 11). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Snijders, T. A. B., van de Bunt, G. G., & Steglich, C. E. G. (2010). Introduction to stochastic actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks, 32 (1), 4460.
Steglich, C., Sinclair, P., Holliday, J., & Moore, L. (2012). Actor-based analysis of peer influence in A Stop Smoking in Schools Trial (ASSIST). Social Networks, 34 (3), 359369.
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behaviour: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology, 40, 329393.
Steglich, C., Snijders, T. A. B., & West, B. (2006). Applying SIENA: An illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents' friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology, 2 (1), 4856.
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83110.
Tajfel, H. (1974). Social identity and intergroup behavior. Social Science Information Sur Les Sciences Sociales, 13 (2), 6593.
Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S. (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 3347). Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: a self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
van de Bunt, G. G., Wittek, R. P. M. & de Klepper, M. C. (2005). The evolution of intra-organizational trust networks - The case of a German paper factory: An empirical test of six trust mechanisms. International Sociology, 20 (3), 339369.
van Duijn, M. A. J., Zeggelink, E. P. H., Huisman, M., Stokman, F. N., & Wasseur, F. W. (2003). Evolution of sociology freshmen into a friendship network. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27 (2–3), 153191.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1977). Structure of adult friendship choices. Social Forces, 56 (2), 576597.
Werner, C., & Parmelee, P. (1979). Similarity of activity preference among friends - those who play together stay together. Social Psychology, 42 (1), 6266.
Wimmer, A., & Lewis, K. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on facebook. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (2), 583642.


Related content

Powered by UNSILO

Multidimensional homophily in friendship networks*

  • PER BLOCK (a1) and THOMAS GRUND (a2)


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.