Skip to main content
    • Aa
    • Aa

The origins of asymmetric ties in friendship networks: From status differential to self-perceived centrality

  • WEIHUA AN (a1) and WILL R. MCCONNELL (a2)

Asymmetric ties make up a significant proportion of ties in friendship networks. But little is known about their origins. Prior research has suggested treating them either as “accidental” (e.g., resulting from constraints in name generators) or “aspirational” (i.e., the attempts of individuals to pursue relationships with higher status peers). In this paper, we show that self-perception can also explain the occurrence of asymmetric ties. We argue that under the general norm of reciprocity, actors with high self-perceived centrality will more likely send out ties to others than their counterparts. Supposing that outgoing ties are similarly reciprocated by peers, then actors with high self-perceived centrality will also entail more asymmetric ties. We test this idea along with the competing arguments using exponential random graph models (ERGMs) on network data collected from over 4,000 students in China. Consistent with previous findings, we find that asymmetric ties reflect status differences, but probably more strongly so for difference in individual status characteristics than difference in social positional status. More importantly, we find that students with high self-perceived centrality are about twice as likely to send asymmetric ties as their peers. Last, we examine the implications of our findings for future network research.

Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

C. Anderson , S. Srivastava , J. S. Beer , S. E. Spataro , & J. A. Chatman (2006). Knowing your place: Self-perceptions of status in face-to-face groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 10941110.

A. Barrat , M. Barthelemy , & A. Vespignani (2008). Dynamical Processes on Complex Networks. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

J. Berger , B. P. Cohen , & M. Zelditch Jr. (1972). Status characteristics and social interaction. American Sociological Review, 37, 241255.

R. S. Burt , J. E. Jannotta , & J. T. Mahoney (1998). Personality correlates of structural holes. Social Networks, 20 (1), 6387.

D. Centola , & M. Macy (2007). Complex contagions and the weakness of long ties. American Journal of Sociology, 113 (3), 702734.

J. A. Davis (1968). Statistical analysis of pair relationships: Symmetry, subjective consistency and reciprocity. Sociometry, 31 (1), 102119.

L. C. Freeman (1979). Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification. Social Networks, 1 (3), 215239.

S. M. Goodreau , J. A. Kitts , & M. Morris (2009). Birds of a feather, or friend of a friend? Using exponential random graph models to investigate adolescent social networks. Demography, 46 (1), 103125.

A. W. Gouldner (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25 (2), 161178.

M. S. Granovetter (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 13601380.

F. Heider (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. Hillsdale, NJ: Psychology Press.

P.W. Holland , & S. Leinhardt (1970). A method for detecting structure in sociometric data. American Journal of Sociology, 76 (3), 492513.

D. R. Hunter (2007). Curved exponential family models for social networks. Social Networks, 29 (2), 216230.

M. Kilduff , & D. Krackhardt (2008). Interpersonal networks in organizations: Cognition, personality, dynamics, and culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.

A. Lomi & V. J. Torló (2014). The network dynamics of social status: Problems and possibilities. In S. P. Borgatti , A. Mehra , G. (Joe) Labianca , & D. J. Brass (Eds.), Contemporary perspectives on organizational social networks (pp. 403420). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.

J. L. Martin (2009). Formation and stabilization of vertical hierarchies among adolescents: Towards a quantitative ethology of dominance among humans. Social Psychology Quarterly, 72 (3), 241264.

M. McPherson , L. Smith-Lovin , & J. M. Cook (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 415444.

M. Morris , M. S. Handcock , & D. R. Hunter (2008). Specification of exponential-family random graph models: Terms and computational aspects. Journal of Statistical Software, 24 (4), 15481570.

J. W. Neal (2010). Social aggression and social position in middle childhood and early adolescence: Burning bridges or building them? The Journal of early adolescence, 30 (1), 122137.

M. T. Rivera , S. B. Soderstrom , & B. Uzzi (2010). Dynamics of dyads in social networks: Assortative, relational, and proximity mechanisms. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 91115.

G. Robins , T. Snijders , P. Wang , M. Handcock , & P. Pattison (2007b). Recent developments in exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks, 29 (2), 192215.

G. Robins , P. Pattison , & P. Wang (2009). Closure, connectivity and degrees: New specifications for exponential random graph (p*) models for directed social networks. Social Networks, 31 (2), 105117.

T. A. B. Snijders , & C. Baerveldt (2003). A multilevel network study of the effects of delinquent behavior on friendship evolution. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 27, 123151.

A. B. Sørensen , & M. T. Hallinan (1976). A stochastic model for change in group structure. Social Science Research, 5 (1), 4361.

S. R. Thye (2000). A status value theory of power in exchange relations. American Sociological Review, 65 (3), 407432.

T. W. Valente & R. L. Davis (1999). Accelerating the diffusion of innovations using opinion leaders. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 566 (1), 5567.

T. W. Valente , J. B. Unger , & C. A. Johnson (2005). Do popular students smoke? The association between popularity and smoking among middle school students. Journal of Adolescent Health, 37 (4), 323329.

S. Wasserman , & P. E. Pattison (1996). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks: I. An introduction to Markov graphs and p*. Psychometrika, 61 (3), 401425.

M. J. Webster , & J. E. Driskell (1983). Beauty as status. American Journal of Sociology, 89 (1), 140165.

E. Zeggelink (1995). Evolving friendship networks: An individual-oriented approach implementing similarity. Social Networks, 17 (2), 83110.

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Network Science
  • ISSN: 2050-1242
  • EISSN: 2050-1250
  • URL: /core/journals/network-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *


Type Description Title
Supplementary Materials

An and McConnell supplementary material

 PDF (286 KB)
286 KB


Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 67 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 320 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 26th September 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.