Abstract
Substantial evidence indicates that our social networks are divided into tiers in which people have a few very close social support group, a larger set of friends, and a much larger number of relatively distant acquaintances. Because homophily—the principle that like seeks like—has been suggested as a mechanism by which people interact, it may also provide a mechanism that generates such frequencies and distributions. However, our multi-agent simulation tool, Construct, suggests that a slight supplement to a knowledge homophily model—the inclusion of several highly salient personal facts that are infrequently shared—can more successfully lead to the tiering behavior often observed in human networks than a simplistic homophily model. Our findings imply that homophily on both general and personal facts is necessary in order to achieve realistic frequencies of interaction and distributions of interaction partners. Implications of the model are discussed, and recommendations are provided for simulation designers seeking to use homophily models to explain human interaction patterns.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agneessens F, Waege H, Lievens J (2006) Diversity in social support by role relations: a typology. Soc Netw 28:427–41
Anderson JR (1983) The architecture of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Anderson B, Butts C, Carley K (1999a) The interaction of size and density with graph-level indices. Soc Netw 21:239–67
Anderson C, Wasserman S, Crouch B (1999b) A P* Primer: logit models for social networks. Soc Netw 21:37–66
Axtell R, Axelrod R, Epstein J, Cohen M (1996) Aligning simulation models: a case study and results. Comput Math Organ Theory 1(2):123–142
Bandura A (2001) Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychol 3:265–99
Barabási A-L, Reka A (1999) Emergence of scaling in random networks. Science 286:509–12
Barnlund D, Harland C (1963) Propinquity and prestige as determinants of communication networks. Sociometry 26:467–79
Borgatti S, Foster P (2003) The network paradigm in organizational research: a review and typology. J Manag 29:991–1013
Borgatti S, Carley K, Krackhardt D (2006) On the robustness of centrality measures under conditions of imperfect data. Soc Netw 28:124–36
Burt R (1992) The social structure of competition. In: Structural holes. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, pp 57–89
Butts C (2002) Spatial models of large-scale interpersonal networks. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh
Carley K (1986) An approach for relating social structure to cognitive structure. J Math Sociol 12:137–89
Carley K (1991) A theory of group stability. Am Soc Rev 56:331–54
Carley K (1995) Computational organization theory. Comput Math Organ Theory 1:39–56
Carley K (1999) On the evolution of social and organizational networks. In: Special issue of research in the sociology of organizations on networks in and around organizations, pp 3–30
Carley K (2003) Dynamic network analysis. In: Dynamic social network modeling and analysis: workshop summary and papers, Washington, DC, pp 133–145
Carley K, Martin M, Hirshman B (2009) The etiology of social change. Top Cogn Sci 1(4):621–650
Christakis N, Fowler J (2007) The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years. N Engl J Med 357:370–9
Cowan R, Jonard N (2004) Network structure and the diffusion of knowledge. J Econ Dyn Control 28:1557–75
Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, London
Dunbar RIM (1993) Co-evolution of neocortex size, group size, and language in humans. Behav Brain Sci 16:681–735
Dunbar RIM (1998) The social brain hypothesis. Evol Anthropol 6:178–90
Dunbar RIM, Spoors M (1995) Social networks, support cliques, and kinship. Human Nat 6:273–90
Epstein J, Axtell R (1999) Growing artificial societies. MIT Press, Cambridge
Freeman L (1979) Centrality in social networks: conceptual clarification. Soc Netw 1:215–239
Friedkin N, Johnsen E (1999) Social influence networks and opinion change. Adv Group Process 16:1–29
Goldstein J (1999) Emergence as a construct: history and issues. Emergence 1:49–72
Granovetter MS (1973) The strength of weak ties. Am J Sociol 78:1360–1380
Harrison D, Price K, Bell M (1998) Beyond relational demography: time and the effects of surface- and deep-level diversity on group cohesion. Acad Manag J 41:96–107
Hays R, Oxley D (1986) Social network development and function during a life transition. J Pers Soc Psychol 50:305–13
Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2003) Social network size in human. Human Nat 14:53–72
Hirshman B, Carley K (2007a) Specifying agents in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh
Hirshman B, Carley K (2007b) Specifying networks in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh
Hirshman B, Carley K (2008) Modeling information access in construct. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh
Hirshman B, St. Charles J (2009) Simulating emergent multi-tiered social ties. In: Proceedings of the 2009 human behavior and computational intelligence modeling conference, Oak Ridge National Laboratory
Hirshman B, Martin M, Bigrigg M, Carley K (2008a) The impact of educational interventions by socio-demographic attribute. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh
Hirshman B, Martin M, Birukou A, Bigrigg M, Carley K (2008b) The impact of educational interventions on real & stylized cities. Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh
Ilgen D, Hulin C (2000) Computational modeling of behavior in organizations: the third scientific discipline. American Psychological Association, Washington
Kilduff M, Krackhardt D (1994) Bringing the individual back in: a structural analysis of the internal market for reputation in organizations. Acad Manag J 27:87–108
Krackhardt D, Carley K (1998) A PCANS model of structure in organization. In: Proceedings of the 1998 international symposium on command and control research and technology, Monterey, CA
Laird J, Congdon CB (2006) The soar user’s manual, version 8.6.3. University of Michigan
Lawler E (1999) Bringing emotions into social exchange theory. Annu Rev Sociol 25:217–44
Lazarsfeld P, Merton R (1954) Friendship as social process: a substantive and methodological analysis. In: Berger M, Abel T, Page C (eds) Freedom and control in modern society. Van Nostrand, Princeton
Leskovec J, Horvitz E (2008) Planetary-scale view on a large instant-messaging network. In: Proceedings of the world wide web 2008, Beijing, China
Leskovec J, Kleinberg J, Faloutsos C (2005) Graphs over time: densification laws, shrinking diameters, and possible explanations. In: Proceedings of the 2005 conference on knowledge and data discovery, Chicago, IL
Leskovec J, Lang K, Dasgupta A, Mahoney M (2008) Statistical properties of community structure in large social and informational networks. In: Proceedings of the 17th international conference on the world wide web conference, Beijing, China
Levine J, Moreland R (1998) Small groups. In: Gilbert SFD, Lindzey G (eds) The handbook of social psychology. Oxford University Press, London
Lopez L, Sanjuan M (2002) Relation between structure and size in social networks. Phys Rev E 65:036107
Marsden P (1987) Core discussion networks of Americans. Am Sociol Rev 52:122–31
Marsden P (1990) Network data and measurement. Annu Rev Sociol 16:435–63
McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook J (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27:415–44
Milgram S (1967) The small world problem. Psychol Today 2:60–7
Mniszewski S, Del Valle S, Stroud P, Riese J, Sydoriak S (2008) EpiSimS simulation of a multi-component strategy for pandemic influenza. In: Proceedings of the 2008 spring simulation multiconference, Ottawa, Canada. ACM, New York
Newcomb T (1961) The acquaintance process. Holt, Reinhart, and Winston, New York
Newell A (1994) Unified theories of cognition. Harvard University Press, Cambridge
Newman M, Park J (2003) Why social networks are different from other types of networks. Phys Rev E 68:036122
Olfati-Saber R (2006) Flocking for multi-agent dynamic systems: algorithms and theory. IEEE Trans Autom Control 51:401–20
Rogers E (1995) Diffusion of innovation. Free Press, New York
Steglich C, Snijders T, West P (2006) Applying Sienna: an illustrative analysis of the co-evolution of adolescents’ friendship networks, taste in music, and alcohol consumption. Methodology 2:48–56
Schreiber C, Siddhartha S, Kathleen C (2004) Construct—a multi-agent network model for the co-evolution of agents and socio-cultural environments. Technical Report ID CMU-ISRI-04-109. Carnegie Mellon University School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh PA
Stiller J, Dunbar RIM (2007) Perspective taking and memory capacity predict social network size. Soc Netw 29:93–104
Thiriot S, Kant J-D (2008) Generate country-scale networks of interaction from scattered statistics. In: Proceedings of the fifth conference of the european social simulation association, Brescia, Italy
Turner J, Oakes P, Haslam SA, McGarty C (1994) Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 20:454–63
Valente T (1995) Network models of the diffusion of innovations. Hampton Press, Cresskill
Wasserman S, Faust K (1994) Social network analysis. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Wellman B (1996) Are personal communities local: a dumptarian reconsideration. Soc Netw 18:347–54
Wellman B, Wortley S (1985) Different strokes from different folks: community ties and social support. Health Educ Behav 12:5–22
Wong LH, Pattison P, Robins G (2006) A spatial model for social networks. Physica A 360:99–120
Zhou WX, Sornette D, Hill RA, Dunbar RIM (2005) Discrete hierarchical organization of social group sizes. Proc R Soc Lond B, Biol Sci 272:439–44
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hirshman, B.R., St. Charles, J. & Carley, K.M. Leaving us in tiers: can homophily be used to generate tiering effects?. Comput Math Organ Theory 17, 318–343 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-011-9088-4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10588-011-9088-4