“同质性”的版本间的差异
（Moved page from wikipedia:en:Homophily (history)） |
|||
| 第1行： | 第1行： | ||
此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。 | 此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。 | ||
| + | 本词条由信白初步翻译<br> | ||
{{distinguish|Homophile}} | {{distinguish|Homophile}} | ||
| 第11行： | 第12行： | ||
Homophily (from Ancient Greek: homoû, 'together' + philíē, 'friendship, love') is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb "birds of a feather flock together." The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies: over have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection. The categories on which homophily occurs include age, gender, class, and organizational role. | Homophily (from Ancient Greek: homoû, 'together' + philíē, 'friendship, love') is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb "birds of a feather flock together." The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies: over have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection. The categories on which homophily occurs include age, gender, class, and organizational role. | ||
| − | + | 同质性（源自古希腊语：homoû，“ together” +philíē，“ friendship，love”）是个体趋向于与相似的其他人交往和联系的一种倾向，就像谚语“羽毛鸟聚在一起”。 在各种各样的网络研究中都发现了同质性的存在：过去以某种形式或其他形式观察到同质性，并且他们确定相似性与连接有关。 同形发生的类别包括年龄，性别，阶级和组织角色。 | |
| − | |||
2020年9月25日 (五) 19:45的版本
此词条暂由彩云小译翻译，未经人工整理和审校，带来阅读不便，请见谅。
本词条由信白初步翻译
Homophily (from Ancient Greek: homoû, 'together' + philíē, 'friendship, love') is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb "birds of a feather flock together."[1] The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies: over 100 studies have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection.[2] The categories on which homophily occurs include age, gender, class, and organizational role.[3]
Homophily (from Ancient Greek: homoû, 'together' + philíē, 'friendship, love') is the tendency of individuals to associate and bond with similar others, as in the proverb "birds of a feather flock together." The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of network studies: over have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection. The categories on which homophily occurs include age, gender, class, and organizational role.
同质性（源自古希腊语：homoû，“ together” +philíē，“ friendship，love”）是个体趋向于与相似的其他人交往和联系的一种倾向，就像谚语“羽毛鸟聚在一起”。 在各种各样的网络研究中都发现了同质性的存在：过去以某种形式或其他形式观察到同质性，并且他们确定相似性与连接有关。 同形发生的类别包括年龄，性别，阶级和组织角色。
The opposite of homophily is heterophily or intermingling. Individuals in homophilic relationships share common characteristics (beliefs, values, education, etc.) that make communication and relationship formation easier. Homophily between mated pairs in animals has been extensively studied in the field of evolutionary biology, where it is known as assortative mating. Homophily between mated pairs is common within natural animal mating populations.[4]
The opposite of homophily is heterophily or intermingling. Individuals in homophilic relationships share common characteristics (beliefs, values, education, etc.) that make communication and relationship formation easier. Homophily between mated pairs in animals has been extensively studied in the field of evolutionary biology, where it is known as assortative mating. Homophily between mated pairs is common within natural animal mating populations.
同质性的反义词是异质性或混合性。在同性恋关系中的个体具有共同的特征(信仰、价值观、教育等)让沟通和关系更容易形成。动物交配对之间的相似性已经在进化生物学领域得到了广泛的研究，在那里它被称为选型交配。在自然的动物交配种群中，交配对之间的相同点是很常见的。
Homophily has a variety of consequences for social and economic outcomes, ranging from facilitating cooperation[5] to slowing processes of consensus-formation,[6] among others.
Homophily has a variety of consequences for social and economic outcomes, ranging from facilitating cooperation among others.
同质性对社会和经济结果有各种各样的影响，从促进其他方面的合作。
Types and dimensions
Baseline vs. inbreeding
To test the relevance of homophily, researchers have distinguished between two types:[2]
To test the relevance of homophily, researchers have distinguished between two types:
为了检验同质性的相关性，研究人员区分了两种类型:
- Baseline homophily: simply the amount of homophily that would be expected by chance given an existing uneven distribution of people with varying characteristics; and
- Inbreeding homophily: the amount of homophily over and above this expected value, typically due to personal preferences and choices.
Status vs. value
In their original formulation of homophily, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton (1954) distinguished between status homophily and value homophily, find that individuals with similar social status characteristics are more likely to associate with each other than by chance:[7][2]
In their original formulation of homophily, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton (1954) distinguished between status homophily and value homophily, find that individuals with similar social status characteristics are more likely to associate with each other than by chance:
在他们关于同质性的原始构想中，Paul Lazarsfeld 和罗伯特·金·莫顿(1954)区分了身份同质性和价值同质性，发现具有相似社会地位特征的个体更有可能相互交往，而不是偶然交往:
- Status homophily: includes both ascribed characteristics (e.g. race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and acquired characteristics (e.g., religion and education).
- Value homophily: involves association with others who think in similar ways, regardless of differences in status characteristics.
Dimensions
Race and ethnicity
Social networks in the United States today are strongly divided by race and ethnicity,[8] which account for the greatest proportion of inbreeding homophily (though classification by these criteria can be problematic in sociology due to fuzzy boundaries and different definitions of race).
Social networks in the United States today are strongly divided by race and ethnicity, which account for the greatest proportion of inbreeding homophily (though classification by these criteria can be problematic in sociology due to fuzzy boundaries and different definitions of race).
今天，美国的社交网络按种族和族裔划分得很清楚，在近亲繁殖的同质性中，种族和族裔所占的比例最大(尽管由于种族界限模糊和定义不同，按这些标准进行分类在社会学中可能会有问题)。
Smaller groups have lower diversity simply due to the number of members. This tends to give racial and ethnic minority groups a higher baseline homophily. Race and ethnicity also correlates with educational attainment and occupation, which further increase baseline homophily.[2]
Smaller groups have lower diversity simply due to the number of members. This tends to give racial and ethnic minority groups a higher baseline homophily. Race and ethnicity also correlates with educational attainment and occupation, which further increase baseline homophily.
较小的群体的多样性较低，仅仅是因为成员的数量。这往往使少数种族群体和少数民族群体具有较高的基线同质性。种族和民族也与学历和职业相关，这进一步增加了基线同质性。
Sex and gender
In regard to sex and gender, baseline homophily of networks is relatively low compared to race and ethnicity. Men and women frequently live together, and are both large and equally-sized populations. Most sex homophily is of the inbreeding type.[2] Especially in schools, students tend to have a high gender homophily.[9]
In regard to sex and gender, baseline homophily of networks is relatively low compared to race and ethnicity. Men and women frequently live together, and are both large and equally-sized populations. Most sex homophily is of the inbreeding type.
在性和性别方面，与种族和族裔相比，网络的基线同质性相对较低。男人和女人经常住在一起，人口众多，数量相等。大多数性别同质性为近交型。
Age
Most age homophily is of the baseline type. An interesting pattern of inbreeding age homophily for groups of different ages was found by Marsden (1988).[10] It indicated a strong relationship between someone's age and the social distance to other people with regard to confiding in someone. For example, the larger age gap someone had, the smaller chances that they were confided by others with lower ages to "discuss important matters."[2]
Most age homophily is of the baseline type. An interesting pattern of inbreeding age homophily for groups of different ages was found by Marsden (1988). It indicated a strong relationship between someone's age and the social distance to other people with regard to confiding in someone. For example, the larger age gap someone had, the smaller chances that they were confided by others with lower ages to "discuss important matters."
大多数年龄相同的是基线类型。马斯登(1988)发现了不同年龄组近交年龄相同的有趣模式。它表明了一个人的年龄和社会距离之间的强烈关系，以其他人在信任某人。例如，一个人的年龄差距越大，他们被年龄较小的人吐露“讨论重要事情”的机会就越小
Religion
Homophily based on religion is due to both baseline and inbreeding homophily.[2]
Homophily based on religion is due to both baseline and inbreeding homophily.
基于宗教的同质性既有基线性，也有近亲繁殖的同质性。
Education, occupation and social class
Family of birth accounts for considerable baseline homophily with respect to education, occupation, and social class.[2]
Family of birth accounts for considerable baseline homophily with respect to education, occupation, and social class.
出生家庭在教育、职业和社会阶层方面占有相当大的基线同质性。
Social media
As social networks are largely divided by race, social-networking websites like Facebook also foster homophilic atmospheres.[11] When a Facebook user 'likes' or interacts with an article or post of a certain ideology, Facebook continues to show that user posts of that similar ideology (which Facebook believes they will be drawn to). In a research article, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook (2003) write that homogeneous personal networks result in limited "social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience."[12] This homophily can foster divides and echo chambers on social networking sites, where people of similar ideologies only interact with each other.
As social networks are largely divided by race, social-networking websites like Facebook also foster homophilic atmospheres. When a Facebook user 'likes' or interacts with an article or post of a certain ideology, Facebook continues to show that user posts of that similar ideology (which Facebook believes they will be drawn to). In a research article, McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook (2003) write that homogeneous personal networks result in limited "social worlds in a way that has powerful implications for the information they receive, the attitudes they form, and the interactions they experience." This homophily can foster divides and echo chambers on social networking sites, where people of similar ideologies only interact with each other.
由于社交网络在很大程度上被种族划分开来，像 Facebook 这样的社交网站也培养了亲同性恋的氛围。当 Facebook 用户“喜欢”或与某种意识形态的文章或帖子互动时，Facebook 继续向用户展示类似意识形态的帖子(Facebook 相信他们会被这些帖子所吸引)。麦克弗森、史密斯-洛文和库克(2003年)在一篇研究文章中写道，同质化的个人网络造成了有限的“社会世界，这种社会世界对他们接收的信息、他们形成的态度以及他们所经历的互动有着强大的影响。”这种同质性可以在社交网站上形成分裂和回音室，在那里，具有相似意识形态的人只能相互交流。
Causes and effects
Causes
Geography: Baseline homophily often arises when the people who are located nearby also have similar characteristics. People are more likely to have contact with those who are geographically closer than those who are distant. Technology such as the telephone, e-mail, and social networks have reduced but not eliminated this effect.
Geography: Baseline homophily often arises when the people who are located nearby also have similar characteristics. People are more likely to have contact with those who are geographically closer than those who are distant. Technology such as the telephone, e-mail, and social networks have reduced but not eliminated this effect.
地理位置: 当周围的人也有相似的特征时，基线同质性常常出现。人们更有可能与那些地理上比较近的人接触，而不是那些距离较远的人。电话、电子邮件和社交网络等技术已经减少但并未消除这种影响。
Family ties: Family relationships often produce relatively close, frequent contact among those who are at great geographic distance. These ties tend to decay slowly, but can be dramatically restructured when new marriages occur.
Family ties: Family relationships often produce relatively close, frequent contact among those who are at great geographic distance. These ties tend to decay slowly, but can be dramatically restructured when new marriages occur.
家庭关系: 家庭关系往往产生相对密切，频繁的接触之间的地理距离很远。这些关系往往会缓慢衰退，但当新的婚姻出现时，它们可以戏剧性地重组。
Organizations: School, work, and volunteer activities provide the great majority of non-family ties. Many friendships, confiding relations, and social support ties are formed within voluntary groups. The social homogeneity of most organizations creates a strong baseline homophily in networks that are formed there.
Organizations: School, work, and volunteer activities provide the great majority of non-family ties. Many friendships, confiding relations, and social support ties are formed within voluntary groups. The social homogeneity of most organizations creates a strong baseline homophily in networks that are formed there.
组织: 学校、工作和志愿者活动提供了绝大多数的非家庭纽带。许多友谊、信任关系和社会支持关系都是在志愿者团体中形成的。大多数组织的社会同质性在形成的网络中创造了一个强大的基线同质性。
Isomorphic sources: The connections between people who occupy equivalent roles will induce homophily in the system of network ties. This is common in three domains: workplace (e.g., all heads of HR departments will tend to associate with other HR heads), family (e.g., mothers tend to associate with other mothers), and informal networks.
Isomorphic sources: The connections between people who occupy equivalent roles will induce homophily in the system of network ties. This is common in three domains: workplace (e.g., all heads of HR departments will tend to associate with other HR heads), family (e.g., mothers tend to associate with other mothers), and informal networks.
同构性来源: 在网络关系系统中，身处同等角色的人之间的联系会导致同构性。这在三个领域很常见: 工作场所(例如，所有人力资源部门的负责人都倾向于与其他人力资源负责人联系)、家庭(例如，母亲倾向于与其他母亲联系)和非正式网络。
Cognitive processes: People who have demographic similarity tend to own shared knowledge, and therefore they have a greater ease of communication and share cultural tastes, which can also generate homophily.
Cognitive processes: People who have demographic similarity tend to own shared knowledge, and therefore they have a greater ease of communication and share cultural tastes, which can also generate homophily.
认知过程: 人口统计学上相似的人倾向于拥有共享的知识，因此他们有更大的交流和共享的文化品味，这也可以产生同质性。
Effects
According to one study, perception of interpersonal similarity improves coordination and increase the expected payoff of interactions, above and beyond the effect of merely "liking others."[13] Another study claims that homophily produces tolerance and cooperation in social spaces.[5] However, homophilic patterns can also restrict access to information or inclusion for minorities.[14]
According to one study, perception of interpersonal similarity improves coordination and increase the expected payoff of interactions, above and beyond the effect of merely "liking others." Another study claims that homophily produces tolerance and cooperation in social spaces. However, homophilic patterns can also restrict access to information or inclusion for minorities.
根据一项研究，人际相似性感知可以改善协调性，提高互动的预期回报，远远超过仅仅“喜欢他人”的效果另一项研究声称，同质性在社会空间产生宽容与合作。然而，同源模式也会限制少数族裔获取信息或包容性。
The effects of homophily on the diffusion of information and behaviors are also complex. Some studies have claimed that homophily facilitates access information,[15] the diffusion of innovations and behaviors,[16] and the formation of social norms.[17] Other studies, however, highlight mechanisms through which homophily can maintain disagreement, exacerbate polarization of opinions, and slow the formation of an overall consensus.[6][18]
The effects of homophily on the diffusion of information and behaviors are also complex. Some studies have claimed that homophily facilitates access information, the diffusion of innovations and behaviors, and the formation of social norms. Other studies, however, highlight mechanisms through which homophily can maintain disagreement, exacerbate polarization of opinions, and slow the formation of an overall consensus.
同质性对信息和行为扩散的影响也是复杂的。一些研究声称，同质性促进了信息的获取，创新产品渗透理论和行为，以及社会规范的形成。然而，其他的研究强调了同质性可以维持分歧，加剧意见的两极分化，并减缓整体共识形成的机制。
Homophily is a cause of homogamy—marriage between people with similar characteristics.[19] Homophily is a fertility factor; an increased fertility is seen in people with a tendency to seek acquaintance among those with common characteristics.[20] Governmental family policies have a decreased influence on fertility rates in such populations.[20]
Homophily is a cause of homogamy—marriage between people with similar characteristics. Homophily is a fertility factor; an increased fertility is seen in people with a tendency to seek acquaintance among those with common characteristics.
同质性是同质婚姻的一个原因ーー具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻。同质性是一种 F质粒，人们倾向于在具有共同特征的人群中寻求熟人，这种倾向会导致生育力的提高。
See also
References
- ↑ Ferguson, Niall (August 15, 2017). "The False Prophecy of Hyperconnection". Foreign Affairs. Retrieved October 1, 2017.
At the same time, birds of a feather flock together. Because of the phenomenon known as “homophily”, or attraction to similarity, social networks tend to form clusters of nodes with similar properties or attitudes.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 McPherson, M.; Smith-Lovin, L.; Cook, J. M. (2001). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks". Annual Review of Sociology. 27: 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
- ↑ Retica, Aaron (10 December 2006). "Homophily". New York Times.
- ↑ Jiang, Yuexin; Bolnick, Daniel I.; Kirkpatrick, Mark (June 2013). "Assortative Mating in Animals". The American Naturalist. 181 (6): E125–38. doi:10.1086/670160. hdl:2152/31270. JSTOR 10.1086/670160. PMID 23669548.
- ↑ 5.0 5.1 Mark, N. P. (2003). "Culture and competition: Homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches". American Sociological Review. 68 (3): 319–345. doi:10.2307/1519727. JSTOR 1519727.
- ↑ 6.0 6.1 Golub and Jackson (2012z). "How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics" (PDF). Quarterly Journal of Economics. 127(3): 1287–1338.
- ↑ Lazarsfeld, Paul F., and Merton, Robert K. 1954. "Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis." Pp. 18–66 in Freedom and Control in Modern Society, edited by M. Berger, T. Abel, and C. H. Page. New York: Van Nostrand.
- ↑ Moody, James (November 2001). "Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America". American Journal of Sociology (in English). 107 (3): 679–716. doi:10.1086/338954. ISSN 0002-9602.
- ↑ Shrum, Wesley; Cheek, Neil H.; Hunter, Saundra MacD. (October 1988). "Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily". Sociology of Education. 61 (4): 227. doi:10.2307/2112441. ISSN 0038-0407. JSTOR 2112441.
- ↑ Marsden, P. V. 1988. "Homogeneity in confiding relations." Social Networks 10:57–76.
- ↑ Aiello, Luca Maria; Barrat, Alain; Schifanella, Rossano; Cattuto, Ciro; Markines, Benjamin; Menczer, Filippo (2012-05-01). "Friendship prediction and homophily in social media". ACM Transactions on the Web. 6 (2): 1–33. doi:10.1145/2180861.2180866. ISSN 1559-1131.
- ↑ McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn; Cook, James M. (2003-11-28). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks". Annual Review of Sociology (in English). 27 (1): 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415.
- ↑ Chierchia, Gabriele; Coricelli, Giorgio (2015). "The impact of perceived similarity on tacit coordination: propensity for matching and aversion to decoupling choices". Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 9: 202. doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00202. PMC 4516978. PMID 26283940.
- ↑ Karimi, Fariba; Génois, Mathieu; Wagner, Claudia; Singer, Philipp; Strohmaier, Markus (2018-07-23). "Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks". Scientific Reports. 8 (1): 11077. Bibcode:2018NatSR...811077K. doi:10.1038/s41598-018-29405-7. ISSN 2045-2322. PMID 30038426.
- ↑ Choudhury, M. D (2010). ""Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media". arXiv:1006.1702 [cs.CY].
- ↑ Christakis, N. A; Fowler, J. H. (2007). "The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years" (PDF). The New England Journal of Medicine. 357 (4): 370–379. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.581.4893. doi:10.1056/nejmsa066082. PMID 17652652.
- ↑ Centola, D; R, Willer; M, Macy (2005). "The emperor's dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms". American Journal of Sociology. 110 (4): 1009–1040. doi:10.1086/427321. JSTOR 10.1086/427321.
- ↑ Centola D, Gonzalez-Avella JC, Eguiluz VM, San Miguel M. (2007). "Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 51(6): 905–29.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - ↑ Fiore, A. T. and Donath, J. S. (2005). "Homophily in Online Dating: When Do You Like Someone Like Yourself?". MIT Media Lab.
- ↑ 20.0 20.1 Thomas Fent; Belinda Aparicio Diaz; Alexia Prskawetz (2013). "Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure". Demographic Research. 29 (37).
Category:Interpersonal relationships
类别: 人际关系
Category:Sociological terminology
类别: 社会学术语
This page was moved from wikipedia:en:Homophily. Its edit history can be viewed at 同质性/edithistory