“同质性”的版本间的差异

来自集智百科 - 复杂系统|人工智能|复杂科学|复杂网络|自组织
跳到导航 跳到搜索
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。
+
{{#seo:
−
本词条由信白初步翻译<br>
+
|keywords=同质性,人际联系,特征,基础同质性,近交同质性
−
本词条由Miyasaki初步审校
+
|description=是个体趋向于与其他相似的人交往和发展关系的一种倾向。
 +
}}
 +
'''同质性 Homophily'''（源自古希腊语：homoû，“ together” +philíē，“ friendship，love”）是个体趋向于与其他相似的人交往和发展关系的一种倾向，就像谚语“物以类聚，人以群分”。<ref>{{cite magazine |magazine=[[Foreign Affairs]] |first=Niall |last=Ferguson |quote=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. |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-08-15/false-prophecy-hyperconnection |title=The False Prophecy of Hyperconnection |date=August 15, 2017 |access-date=October 1, 2017}}</ref> 在大批网络研究中都发现了同质性的存在：过去观察到同质性以各式各样的形式存在，并且他们已证实相似性与人际联系有关。<ref name=birds>{{cite journal | last1 = McPherson | first1 = M. | last2 = Smith-Lovin | first2 = L. | last3 = Cook | first3 = J. M. | year = 2001 | title = Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks | journal = Annual Review of Sociology | volume = 27 | issue = | pages = 415–444 | doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415}}</ref>同质性建立在以年龄，性别，阶级和组织角色划分的类别上。<ref name=aaron>{{cite news|last=Retica|first=Aaron|title=Homophily|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2a.t-4.html|newspaper=New York Times|date=10 December 2006}}</ref>
  
−
{{distinguish|Homophile}}
 
  
−
{{Short description|Process by which people befriend similar people}}{{expert needed|sociology|reason=statements about humans are unqualified|date=November 2011}}
+
同质性的相反是'''[[异质性 heterophily]] '''或'''[[混合 Intermingling]]'''。处于同质性关系中的个人具有共同的特征（信念，价值观，教育程度等），这使沟通和关系的形成变得更加容易。 动物配偶之间的同质性已在进化生物学领域被广泛研究，被称为'''<font color="#FF8000">分类交配 Assortative Mating </font>'''。 在自然动物的交配种群中，配偶之间的同质性很普遍。<ref name="Assortative Mating in Animals">{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuexin |last2=Bolnick |first2=Daniel I. |last3=Kirkpatrick |first3=Mark |title=Assortative Mating in Animals |journal=The American Naturalist |date=June 2013 |volume=181 |issue=6 |pages=E125–38 |doi=10.1086/670160 |pmid=23669548 |jstor=10.1086/670160 |ref=Assortative Mating in Animals|hdl=2152/31270 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
  
−
{{Network science}}
 
  
−
'''Homophily''' (from [[Ancient Greek]]: ''[[:wiktionary:ὁμοῦ#Ancient Greek|homoû]]'', 'together' + ''philíē'', 'friendship, love') is the tendency of individuals to associate and [[human bonding|bond]] with similar others, as in the [[proverb]] "[[wikt:birds of a feather flock together|birds of a feather flock together]]."<ref>{{cite magazine |magazine=[[Foreign Affairs]] |first=Niall |last=Ferguson |quote=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. |url=https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2017-08-15/false-prophecy-hyperconnection |title=The False Prophecy of Hyperconnection |date=August 15, 2017 |access-date=October 1, 2017}}</ref> The presence of homophily has been discovered in a vast array of [[social network|network]] studies: over {{nowrap|100 studies}} have observed homophily in some form or another, and they establish that similarity is associated with connection.<ref name=birds>{{cite journal | last1 = McPherson | first1 = M. | last2 = Smith-Lovin | first2 = L. | last3 = Cook | first3 = J. M. | year = 2001 | title = Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks | journal = Annual Review of Sociology | volume = 27 | issue = | pages = 415–444 | doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415}}</ref> The categories on which homophily occurs include [[Age group|age]], [[gender]], [[social class|class]], and organizational role.<ref name=aaron>{{cite news|last=Retica|first=Aaron|title=Homophily|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2a.t-4.html|newspaper=New York Times|date=10 December 2006}}</ref>
+
同质性对社会和经济结果有多种影响，其中包括促进合作<ref name=":0" />、放慢达成共识的过程<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Golub and Jackson|first=|date=2012z|title=How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics|url=http://www.bengolub.net/papers/homophily.pdf|journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=127(3)|pages=1287–1338|via=}}</ref>。
  
−
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.
 
  
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">同质性 Homophily </font>'''（源自古希腊语：homoû，“ together” +philíē，“ friendship，love”）是个体趋向于与其他相似的人交往和发展关系的一种倾向，就像谚语“物以类聚，人以群分”。 在大批网络研究中都发现了同质性的存在：过去观察到同质性以各式各样的形式存在，并且他们已证实相似性与人际联系有关。 同质性建立在以年龄，性别，阶级和组织角色划分的类别上。
+
==类型和维度==
 +
==基础与近交 Baseline vs. inbreeding==
  
 +
为了测试同质性的相关性，研究人员区分了两种类型：<ref name=birds />
  
−
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 [[Breeding pair|mated pairs]] in animals has been extensively studied in the field of [[evolutionary biology]], where it is known as [[assortative mating|''assortative mating'']]. Homophily between mated pairs is common within natural animal mating populations.<ref name="Assortative Mating in Animals">{{cite journal |last1=Jiang |first1=Yuexin |last2=Bolnick |first2=Daniel I. |last3=Kirkpatrick |first3=Mark |title=Assortative Mating in Animals |journal=The American Naturalist |date=June 2013 |volume=181 |issue=6 |pages=E125–38 |doi=10.1086/670160 |pmid=23669548 |jstor=10.1086/670160 |ref=Assortative Mating in Animals|hdl=2152/31270 |hdl-access=free }}</ref>
+
* '''基础同质性 Baseline homophily''': 即，在现存的不均匀分布的不同特征的人中，偶然形成的同质性的多少；
 +
* '''近交同质性 Inbreeding homophily''': 通常是由于个人偏好和选择而产生的，超出预期价值的同质性的多少。
  
−
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.
 
  
−
同质性的相反是'''<font color="#FF8000">异质性 heterophily </font>'''或'''<font color="#FF8000">混合 Intermingling </font>'''。 处于同质性关系中的个人具有共同的特征（信念，价值观，教育程度等），这使沟通和关系的形成变得更加容易。 动物配偶之间的同质性已在进化生物学领域被广泛研究，被称为'''<font color="#FF8000">分类交配 Assortative Mating </font>'''。 在自然动物的交配种群中，配偶之间的同质性很普遍。
+
==地位与价值 Status vs. value==
  
 +
保罗·拉扎斯菲尔德 Paul Lazarsfeld和罗伯特·K·默顿 Robert K.Merton（1954）在最初对同质性的表述中，区分了地位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可能与彼此交往：<ref name="lazar">Paul Lazarsfeld, and Robert K. Merton 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 Reinhold. </ref><ref name="birds" />
  
−
Homophily has a variety of consequences for social and economic outcomes, ranging from facilitating cooperation<ref name=":0" /> to slowing processes of [[Consensus decision-making|consensus-formation]],<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Golub and Jackson|first=|date=2012z|title=How homophily affects the speed of learning and best-response dynamics|url=http://www.bengolub.net/papers/homophily.pdf|journal=Quarterly Journal of Economics|volume=127(3)|pages=1287–1338|via=}}</ref> among others.
 
  
−
Homophily has a variety of consequences for social and economic outcomes, ranging from facilitating cooperation to slowing processes of consensus-formation, among others.
+
* '''同质状态 Status homophily'''：既包括先天决定的特征（例如种族，民族，性别和年龄），也包括后天获得的特征（例如宗教和教育）。
 +
*'''<font color="#FF8000"> Status Homophily </font>'''
 +
* '''价值同质 Value homophily'''：包括与相同思维模式的人的联系，而与地位特征的差别无关。
  
−
同质性对社会和经济结果有多种影响，其中包括促进合作、放慢达成共识的过程。
 
  
 +
== 维度 Dimensions ==
  
−
==Types and dimensions==
+
==种族和民族 Race and ethnicity==
−
类型和维度<br>
 
  
 +
在今天的美国，社会网络在种族 Race和民族 ethnicity之间有很强的区分，<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moody|first=James|date=November 2001|title=Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America|journal=American Journal of Sociology|language=en|volume=107|issue=3|pages=679–716|doi=10.1086/338954|issn=0002-9602}}</ref>这在近交同质性中占最大比例（尽管由于模糊的边界和种族的不同定义，根据这些标准进行分类在社会学上可能会出现问题）。
  
  
−
==Baseline vs. inbreeding==
+
较小的组仅由于成员数而具有较低的多样性。 这容易使少数族裔群体具有更高的基础同质性。 种族和民族也与学业成就和职业相互关联，这进一步加强了基础同质性。<ref name="birds" />
−
基础与近交<br>
 
  
−
To test the relevance of homophily, researchers have distinguished between two types:<ref name=birds />
 
  
−
To test the relevance of homophily, researchers have distinguished between two types:
+
==性别 Sex and gender==
  
−
为了测试同质性的相关性，研究人员区分了两种类型：
+
关于性别，与种族和民族相比，社会网络的基础同质性相对较低。 男女经常生活在一起，且男女人口数量相近，都很庞大。 大多数性别同质性是近交类型。<ref name="birds" /> Especially in schools, students tend to have a high gender homophily.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shrum|first=Wesley|last2=Cheek|first2=Neil H.|last3=Hunter|first3=Saundra MacD.|date=October 1988|title=Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily|journal=Sociology of Education|volume=61|issue=4|pages=227|doi=10.2307/2112441|issn=0038-0407|jstor=2112441}}</ref>
  
−
* '''Baseline homophily''': simply the amount of homophily that would be expected by chance given an existing uneven distribution of people with varying characteristics; and
 
−
*'''<font color="#FF8000">基础同质性 Baseline Homophily </font>'''：即，在现存的不均匀分布的不同特征的人中，偶然形成的同质性的多少；
 
−
* '''Inbreeding homophily''': the amount of homophily over and above this expected value, typically due to personal preferences and choices.
 
  
−
*'''<font color="#FF8000">近交同质性 Inbreeding Homophily </font>'''：通常是由于个人偏好和选择而产生的，超出预期价值的同质性的多少。
+
==年龄 Age==
−
==Status vs. value==
 
−
地位与价值<br>
 
  
−
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:<ref name="lazar">[[Paul Lazarsfeld|Lazarsfeld, Paul&nbsp;F.]], and [[Robert K. Merton|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 Reinhold|Van Nostrand]]. </ref><ref name="birds" />
+
大多数年龄同质性属于基础类型。 Marsden发现了不同年龄组的近交年龄同质性的有趣模式（1988）。<ref>Marsden, P. V. 1988. "Homogeneity in confiding relations." ''[[Social Networks (journal)|Social Networks]]'' 10:57–76.</ref> 它表明某人的年龄和与他人的社会距离对于信赖某人有很强的关系。 例如，某人与他人的年龄差距越大，他们受较低年龄的其他人信赖，“共商重要问题”的机率就越小。<ref name="birds" />
  
−
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:
 
  
−
保罗·拉扎斯菲尔德（Paul Lazarsfeld）和罗伯特·K·默顿（Robert K.Merton）（1954）在最初对同质性的表述中，区分了地位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可能与彼此交往：
+
==宗教 Religion==
  
 +
基于宗教的同质性是由基础同质性和近交同质性共同造成的。<ref name="birds" />
  
−
* '''Status homophily''': includes both [[ascribed characteristics]] (e.g. race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and [[Acquired characteristic|acquired characteristics]] (e.g., religion and education).
 
−
*'''<font color="#FF8000">同质状态 Status Homophily </font>'''：既包括先天决定的特征（例如种族，民族，性别和年龄），也包括后天获得的特征（例如宗教和教育）。
 
−
* '''Value homophily''': involves association with others who think in similar ways, regardless of differences in status characteristics.
 
−
*'''<font color="#FF8000">价值同质 Value Homophily </font>'''：包括与相同思维模式的人的联系，而与地位特征的差别无关。
 
  
 +
==教育，职业和社会阶层 Education, occupation and social class==
 +
出生家庭在教育，职业和社会阶层方面占相当大的基础同质性。<ref name="birds" />
  
−
== Dimensions ==
 
−
维度<br>
 
  
 +
==社交媒体 Social media ==
  
 +
由于[[社会网络]]在很大程度上由种族划分，因此诸如Facebook之类的社交网站也营造出了同质性的氛围。<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Aiello|first=Luca Maria|last2=Barrat|first2=Alain|last3=Schifanella|first3=Rossano|last4=Cattuto|first4=Ciro|last5=Markines|first5=Benjamin|last6=Menczer|first6=Filippo|date=2012-05-01|title=Friendship prediction and homophily in social media|journal=ACM Transactions on the Web|volume=6|issue=2|pages=1–33|doi=10.1145/2180861.2180866|issn=1559-1131}}</ref>  当Facebook用户点赞某种特定意识形态的文章或帖子或与之互动时，Facebook会继续显示相似意识形态的帖子（Facebook觉得帖子那些会吸引他们）。 McPherson，Smith-Lovin和Cook（2003）在一篇研究文章中写道，同质的个人网络会导致有限的“社会世界，从而对他们所接收的信息，所形成的态度以及所经历的互动产生强大的影响。”<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McPherson |first=Miller |last2=Smith-Lovin |first2=Lynn |last3=Cook |first3=James M. |date=2003-11-28 |title=Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |language=en |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=415–444 |doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415}}</ref>  这种同质性可以在社交网站上促进分歧和回声室，在这里人们只和与自己拥有相似意识形态的人互动
  
−
==Race and ethnicity==
 
−
种族和民族
 
  
 +
==因与果 Causes and effects==
 +
==原因 Causes ==
 +
'''地理环境 Geography'''：当附近的人也具有相似的特征时，通常会产生基础同质性。人们更可能与地理位置较近的人有联系。 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。
  
−
[[Social network]]s in the United States today are strongly divided by [[Race (human categorization)|race]] and [[ethnicity]],<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Moody|first=James|date=November 2001|title=Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America|journal=American Journal of Sociology|language=en|volume=107|issue=3|pages=679–716|doi=10.1086/338954|issn=0002-9602}}</ref> 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).
+
'''家庭关系 Family Ties '''：家庭关系通常会在相距遥远的人之间产生相对紧密的、频繁的联系。 这些纽带趋向于缓慢瓦解，但是当新的婚姻出现时，它们可以被大幅重组。
  
−
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).
+
'''组织 Organizations'''：学校，工作和志愿者活动提供了绝大多数的非家庭纽带。 志愿团体内部建立了许多友谊，信任关系和社会支持纽带。 大多数组织的社会同质性在形成于其中的网络中建立了强大的基础同质性。
  
−
在今天的美国，社会网络在种族和民族之间有很强的区分，这在近交同质性中占最大比例（尽管由于模糊的边界和种族的不同定义，根据这些标准进行分类在社会学上可能会出现问题）。
 
  
 +
'''同构信息源 Isomorphic Sources '''：扮演同等角色的人们之间的联系将导致网络纽带系统中的同质性。 这在三个领域很常见：工作场所（例如，人力资源部门的所有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）以及非正式网络。
  
−
Smaller groups have lower [[Racial diversity|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.<ref name="birds" />
 
  
−
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.
+
'''认知过程 Cognitive Processes'''：具有人口统计学相似性的人倾向于拥有共同的知识，因此他们更容易交流和分享文化品味，这也可能产生同质性。
  
−
较小的组仅由于成员数而具有较低的多样性。 这容易使少数族裔群体具有更高的基础同质性。 种族和民族也与学业成就和职业相互关联，这进一步加强了基础同质性。
 
  
 +
==后果 Effects==
  
−
==Sex and gender==
+
根据一项研究，感知到人际间的相似性不仅可以产生“喜欢别人”的效果，还可以提高协调能力并增加预期的互动收益。<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chierchia|first1=Gabriele|last2=Coricelli|first2=Giorgio|title=The impact of perceived similarity on tacit coordination: propensity for matching and aversion to decoupling choices|journal=Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience|doi=10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00202|pmid=26283940|pmc=4516978|volume=9|pages=202|year=2015}}</ref>  另一项研究声称同质性在社会空间中产生宽容与合作。<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Mark|first1=N. P.|title=Culture and competition: Homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches|journal=American Sociological Review|date=2003|volume=68|issue=3|pages=319–345|jstor=1519727|doi=10.2307/1519727}}</ref> 但是，同质性模式对于少数群体来说，也可能限制信息的获取和接纳性。<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karimi|first=Fariba|last2=Génois|first2=Mathieu|last3=Wagner|first3=Claudia|last4=Singer|first4=Philipp|last5=Strohmaier|first5=Markus|date=2018-07-23|title=Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks|journal=Scientific Reports|volume=8|issue=1|pages=11077|doi=10.1038/s41598-018-29405-7|pmid=30038426|bibcode=2018NatSR...811077K|issn=2045-2322|doi-access=free}}</ref>
−
性别<br>
 
  
  
 +
同质性对信息和行为传播的影响也很复杂。 一些研究声称，同质性促进了信息的获取，<ref>{{cite arXiv|last1=Choudhury|first1=M. D|title="Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media |date=2010 |eprint=1006.1702|class=cs.CY}}</ref>创新和行为的传播<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Christakis|first1=N. A|last2=Fowler|first2=J. H.|title=The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years|journal=The New England Journal of Medicine|date=2007|volume=357|issue=4|pages=370–379|url=http://media.timesfreepress.com/docs/2010/01/Obesity_studies_0104.pdf|doi=10.1056/nejmsa066082|pmid=17652652|citeseerx=10.1.1.581.4893}}</ref>以及社会规范的形成。<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Centola|first1=D|last2=R|first2=Willer|last3=M|first3=Macy|title=The emperor's dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. |journal=American Journal of Sociology|date=2005|volume=110|issue=4|pages=1009–1040|jstor=10.1086/427321|doi=10.1086/427321|url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&context=asc_papers}}</ref> 但是，其他研究强调了同质性可以维持分歧，加剧意见极化并减缓整体共识形成的机制。<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Centola D, Gonzalez-Avella JC, Eguiluz VM, San Miguel M.|first=|date=2007|title=Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups|url=|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=51(6)|pages=905–29|via=}}</ref>
  
−
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.<ref name="birds" /> Especially in schools, students tend to have a high gender homophily.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Shrum|first=Wesley|last2=Cheek|first2=Neil H.|last3=Hunter|first3=Saundra MacD.|date=October 1988|title=Friendship in School: Gender and Racial Homophily|journal=Sociology of Education|volume=61|issue=4|pages=227|doi=10.2307/2112441|issn=0038-0407|jstor=2112441}}</ref>
 
  
−
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.
+
同质性是门当户对的婚姻——即具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻——产生的一个原因。<ref name="fiore">Fiore, A.&nbsp;T. and Donath, J.&nbsp;S. (2005). [http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Fiore/fiore_donath_chi2005_short.pdf "Homophily in Online Dating: When Do You Like Someone Like Yourself?"]. ''MIT Media Lab''.</ref>同质性是一个生育率的要素。 在倾向于结识具有相似特征的人中，我们发现生育几率增加了。<ref name="fent2013">{{cite journal|title=Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure|url=http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol29/37/|journal=Demographic Research|volume=29|issue=37|author1=Thomas Fent |author2=Belinda Aparicio Diaz |author3=Alexia Prskawetz |year=2013}}</ref>
  
−
关于性别，与种族和民族相比，社会网络的基础同质性相对较低。 男女经常生活在一起，且男女人口数量相近，都很庞大。 大多数性别同质性是近交类型。
+
==参见==
  
 +
*[[集体思考 Groupthink]]
  
−
==Age==
 
−
年龄
 
  
−
 
+
==参考文献==
−
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).<ref>Marsden, P. V. 1988. "Homogeneity in confiding relations." ''[[Social Networks (journal)|Social Networks]]'' 10:57–76.</ref> 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."<ref name="birds" />
 
−
 
 
−
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."
 
−
 
 
−
大多数年龄同质性属于基础类型。 Marsden发现了不同年龄组的近交年龄同质性的有趣模式（1988）。 它表明某人的年龄和与他人的社会距离对于信赖某人有很强的关系。 例如，某人与他人的年龄差距越大，他们受较低年龄的其他人信赖，“共商重要问题”的机率就越小。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
==Religion==
 
−
宗教<br>
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Homophily based on religion is due to both ''baseline'' and ''inbreeding'' homophily.<ref name="birds" />
 
−
 
 
−
Homophily based on religion is due to both baseline and inbreeding homophily.
 
−
 
 
−
基于宗教的同质性是由基础同质性和近交同质性共同造成的。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
==Education, occupation and social class==
 
−
教育，职业和社会阶层<br>
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Family of birth accounts for considerable baseline homophily with respect to education, occupation, and [[social class]].<ref name="birds" />
 
−
 
 
−
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相当大的基础同质性。
 
−
 
 
−
== Social media ==
 
−
社交媒体<br>
 
−
 
 
−
As [[social network]]s are largely divided by race, [[Social networking service|social-networking websites]] like [[Facebook]] also foster homophilic atmospheres.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Aiello|first=Luca Maria|last2=Barrat|first2=Alain|last3=Schifanella|first3=Rossano|last4=Cattuto|first4=Ciro|last5=Markines|first5=Benjamin|last6=Menczer|first6=Filippo|date=2012-05-01|title=Friendship prediction and homophily in social media|journal=ACM Transactions on the Web|volume=6|issue=2|pages=1–33|doi=10.1145/2180861.2180866|issn=1559-1131}}</ref> When a Facebook user '[[Facebook like button|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 [[Homogeneity and heterogeneity|homogeneous]] [[Personal network|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."<ref>{{Cite journal |last=McPherson |first=Miller |last2=Smith-Lovin |first2=Lynn |last3=Cook |first3=James M. |date=2003-11-28 |title=Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks |journal=Annual Review of Sociology |language=en |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=415–444 |doi=10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415}}</ref> This homophily can foster divides and [[Echo chamber (media)|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.
 
−
 
 
−
由于社会网络在很大程度上由种族划分，因此诸如Facebook之类的社交网站也营造出了同质性的氛围。 当Facebook用户点赞某种特定意识形态的文章或帖子或与之互动时，Facebook会继续显示相似意识形态的帖子（Facebook觉得帖子那些会吸引他们）。 McPherson，Smith-Lovin和Cook（2003）在一篇研究文章中写道，同质的个人网络会导致有限的“社会世界，从而对他们所接收的信息，所形成的态度以及所经历的互动产生强大的影响。” 这种同质性可以在社交网站上促进分歧和回声室，在这里人们只和与自己拥有相似意识形态的人互动
 
−
 
 
−
==Causes and effects==
 
−
因与果<br>
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
== Causes ==
 
−
原因<br>
 
−
 
 
−
{{Unreferenced section|date=July 2020}}
 
−
 
 
−
'''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.
 
−
 
 
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">地理环境 Geography </font>'''：当附近的人也具有相似的特征时，通常会产生基础同质性。 人们更可能与地理位置较近的人有联系。 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.
 
−
 
 
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">家庭关系 Family Ties </font>'''：家庭关系通常会在相距遥远的人之间产生相对紧密的、频繁的联系。 这些纽带趋向于缓慢瓦解，但是当新的婚姻出现时，它们可以被大幅重组。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
'''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.
 
−
 
 
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">组织 Organizations</font>'''：学校，工作和志愿者活动提供了绝大多数的非家庭纽带。 志愿团体内部建立了许多友谊，信任关系和社会支持纽带。 大多数组织的社会同质性在形成于其中的网络中建立了强大的基础同质性。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
'''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 department|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.
 
−
 
 
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">同构信息源 Isomorphic Sources </font>'''：扮演同等角色的人们之间的联系将导致网络纽带系统中的同质性。 这在三个领域很常见：工作场所（例如，人力资源部门的所有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）以及非正式网络。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
'''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.
 
−
 
 
−
'''<font color="#FF8000">认知过程 Cognitive Processes</font>'''：具有人口统计学相似性的人倾向于拥有共同的知识，因此他们更容易交流和分享文化品味，这也可能产生同质性。
 
−
 
 
−
==Effects==
 
−
后果<br>
 
−
 
 
−
According to one study, [[perception]] of [[Interpersonal attraction|interpersonal]] similarity improves coordination and increase the expected payoff of interactions, above and beyond the effect of merely "liking others."<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Chierchia|first1=Gabriele|last2=Coricelli|first2=Giorgio|title=The impact of perceived similarity on tacit coordination: propensity for matching and aversion to decoupling choices|journal=Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience|doi=10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00202|pmid=26283940|pmc=4516978|volume=9|pages=202|year=2015}}</ref> Another study claims that homophily produces [[Social tolerance|tolerance]] and cooperation in [[Social space|social spaces]].<ref name=":0">{{cite journal|last1=Mark|first1=N. P.|title=Culture and competition: Homophily and distancing explanations for cultural niches|journal=American Sociological Review|date=2003|volume=68|issue=3|pages=319–345|jstor=1519727|doi=10.2307/1519727}}</ref> However, homophilic patterns can also restrict access to information or inclusion for minorities.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Karimi|first=Fariba|last2=Génois|first2=Mathieu|last3=Wagner|first3=Claudia|last4=Singer|first4=Philipp|last5=Strohmaier|first5=Markus|date=2018-07-23|title=Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks|journal=Scientific Reports|volume=8|issue=1|pages=11077|doi=10.1038/s41598-018-29405-7|pmid=30038426|bibcode=2018NatSR...811077K|issn=2045-2322|doi-access=free}}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
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，感知到人际间的相似性不仅可以产生“喜欢别人”的效果，还可以提高协调能力并增加预期的互动收益。 另一项研究声称同质性在社会空间中产生宽容与合作。 但是，同质性模式对于少数群体来说，也可能限制信息的获取和接纳性。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
The effects of homophily on the diffusion of information and behaviors are also complex. Some studies have claimed that homophily facilitates [[Access to information|access information]],<ref>{{cite arXiv|last1=Choudhury|first1=M. D|title="Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media |date=2010 |eprint=1006.1702|class=cs.CY}}</ref> the diffusion of innovations and behaviors,<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Christakis|first1=N. A|last2=Fowler|first2=J. H.|title=The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years|journal=The New England Journal of Medicine|date=2007|volume=357|issue=4|pages=370–379|url=http://media.timesfreepress.com/docs/2010/01/Obesity_studies_0104.pdf|doi=10.1056/nejmsa066082|pmid=17652652|citeseerx=10.1.1.581.4893}}</ref> and the formation of [[Social norm|social norms]].<ref>{{cite journal|last1=Centola|first1=D|last2=R|first2=Willer|last3=M|first3=Macy|title=The emperor's dilemma: A computational model of self-enforcing norms. |journal=American Journal of Sociology|date=2005|volume=110|issue=4|pages=1009–1040|jstor=10.1086/427321|doi=10.1086/427321|url=https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1604&context=asc_papers}}</ref> Other studies, however, highlight mechanisms through which homophily can maintain disagreement, exacerbate [[Social polarization|polarization]] of opinions, and slow the formation of an overall [[Consensus decision-making|consensus]].<ref name=":1" /><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Centola D, Gonzalez-Avella JC, Eguiluz VM, San Miguel M.|first=|date=2007|title=Homophily, cultural drift, and the co-evolution of cultural groups|url=|journal=Journal of Conflict Resolution|volume=51(6)|pages=905–29|via=}}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
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传播的影响也很复杂。 一些研究声称，同质性促进了信息的获取，创新和行为的传播以及社会规范的形成。 但是，其他研究强调了同质性可以维持分歧，加剧意见极化并减缓整体共识形成的机制。
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
Homophily is a cause of [[Homogamy (sociology)|homogamy]]—marriage between people with similar characteristics.<ref name="fiore">Fiore, A.&nbsp;T. and Donath, J.&nbsp;S. (2005). [http://smg.media.mit.edu/papers/Fiore/fiore_donath_chi2005_short.pdf "Homophily in Online Dating: When Do You Like Someone Like Yourself?"]. ''MIT Media Lab''.</ref> Homophily is a [[fertility factor (demography)|fertility factor]]; an increased [[fertility]] is seen in people with a tendency to seek acquaintance among those with common characteristics.<ref name="fent2013" /> Governmental family policies have a decreased influence on [[Total fertility rate|fertility rates]] in such populations.<ref name="fent2013">{{cite journal|title=Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure|url=http://www.demographic-research.org/Volumes/Vol29/37/|journal=Demographic Research|volume=29|issue=37|author1=Thomas Fent |author2=Belinda Aparicio Diaz |author3=Alexia Prskawetz |year=2013}}</ref>
 
−
 
 
−
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.
 
−
 
 
−
同质性是门当户对的婚姻——即具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻——产生的一个原因。同质性是一个生育率的要素。 在倾向于结识具有相似特征的人中，我们发现生育几率增加了。
 
−
 
 
−
==See also==
 
−
 
 
−
*[[Groupthink]]
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
 
 
−
==References==
 
  
 
{{reflist|30em}}
 
{{reflist|30em}}
  
 +
----
 +
本中文词条由[[用户:信白|信白]] 参与编译， [[用户:Miyasaki|Miyasaki]] 审校，[[用户:薄荷|薄荷]]编辑，欢迎在讨论页面留言。
  
 +
'''本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。'''
  
−
{{World view}}
 
−
 
−
 
−
 
−
[[Category:Interpersonal relationships]]
 
−
 
−
Category:Interpersonal relationships
 
−
 
−
类别: 人际关系
 
−
 
−
[[Category:Sociological terminology]]
 
−
 
−
Category:Sociological terminology
 
−
 
−
类别: 社会学术语
 
−
 
−
<noinclude>
 
−
 
−
<small>This page was moved from [[wikipedia:en:Homophily]]. Its edit history can be viewed at [[同质性/edithistory]]</small></noinclude>
 
  
−
[[Category:待整理页面]]
+
[[Category:人际关系]]
 +
[[Category:社会学术语]]

2020年11月22日 (日) 20:04的版本

同质性 Homophily（源自古希腊语：homoû，“ together” +philíē，“ friendship，love”）是个体趋向于与其他相似的人交往和发展关系的一种倾向，就像谚语“物以类聚，人以群分”。[1] 在大批网络研究中都发现了同质性的存在：过去观察到同质性以各式各样的形式存在，并且他们已证实相似性与人际联系有关。[2]同质性建立在以年龄，性别，阶级和组织角色划分的类别上。[3]


同质性的相反是异质性 heterophily 或混合 Intermingling。处于同质性关系中的个人具有共同的特征（信念，价值观，教育程度等），这使沟通和关系的形成变得更加容易。 动物配偶之间的同质性已在进化生物学领域被广泛研究，被称为分类交配 Assortative Mating 。 在自然动物的交配种群中，配偶之间的同质性很普遍。[4]


同质性对社会和经济结果有多种影响，其中包括促进合作[5]、放慢达成共识的过程[6]。


类型和维度

基础与近交 Baseline vs. inbreeding

为了测试同质性的相关性，研究人员区分了两种类型：[2]

  • 基础同质性 Baseline homophily: 即，在现存的不均匀分布的不同特征的人中，偶然形成的同质性的多少；
  • 近交同质性 Inbreeding homophily: 通常是由于个人偏好和选择而产生的，超出预期价值的同质性的多少。


地位与价值 Status vs. value

保罗·拉扎斯菲尔德 Paul Lazarsfeld和罗伯特·K·默顿 Robert K.Merton（1954）在最初对同质性的表述中，区分了地位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可能与彼此交往：[7][2]


  • 同质状态 Status homophily：既包括先天决定的特征（例如种族，民族，性别和年龄），也包括后天获得的特征（例如宗教和教育）。
  • Status Homophily
  • 价值同质 Value homophily：包括与相同思维模式的人的联系，而与地位特征的差别无关。


维度 Dimensions

种族和民族 Race and ethnicity

在今天的美国，社会网络在种族 Race和民族 ethnicity之间有很强的区分，[8]这在近交同质性中占最大比例（尽管由于模糊的边界和种族的不同定义，根据这些标准进行分类在社会学上可能会出现问题）。


较小的组仅由于成员数而具有较低的多样性。 这容易使少数族裔群体具有更高的基础同质性。 种族和民族也与学业成就和职业相互关联，这进一步加强了基础同质性。[2]


性别 Sex and gender

关于性别，与种族和民族相比，社会网络的基础同质性相对较低。 男女经常生活在一起，且男女人口数量相近，都很庞大。 大多数性别同质性是近交类型。[2] Especially in schools, students tend to have a high gender homophily.[9]


年龄 Age

大多数年龄同质性属于基础类型。 Marsden发现了不同年龄组的近交年龄同质性的有趣模式（1988）。[10] 它表明某人的年龄和与他人的社会距离对于信赖某人有很强的关系。 例如，某人与他人的年龄差距越大，他们受较低年龄的其他人信赖，“共商重要问题”的机率就越小。[2]


宗教 Religion

基于宗教的同质性是由基础同质性和近交同质性共同造成的。[2]


教育，职业和社会阶层 Education, occupation and social class

出生家庭在教育，职业和社会阶层方面占相当大的基础同质性。[2]


社交媒体 Social media

由于社会网络在很大程度上由种族划分，因此诸如Facebook之类的社交网站也营造出了同质性的氛围。[11] 当Facebook用户点赞某种特定意识形态的文章或帖子或与之互动时，Facebook会继续显示相似意识形态的帖子（Facebook觉得帖子那些会吸引他们）。 McPherson，Smith-Lovin和Cook（2003）在一篇研究文章中写道，同质的个人网络会导致有限的“社会世界，从而对他们所接收的信息，所形成的态度以及所经历的互动产生强大的影响。”[12] 这种同质性可以在社交网站上促进分歧和回声室，在这里人们只和与自己拥有相似意识形态的人互动


因与果 Causes and effects

原因 Causes

地理环境 Geography：当附近的人也具有相似的特征时，通常会产生基础同质性。人们更可能与地理位置较近的人有联系。 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。

家庭关系 Family Ties ：家庭关系通常会在相距遥远的人之间产生相对紧密的、频繁的联系。 这些纽带趋向于缓慢瓦解，但是当新的婚姻出现时，它们可以被大幅重组。

组织 Organizations：学校，工作和志愿者活动提供了绝大多数的非家庭纽带。 志愿团体内部建立了许多友谊，信任关系和社会支持纽带。 大多数组织的社会同质性在形成于其中的网络中建立了强大的基础同质性。


同构信息源 Isomorphic Sources ：扮演同等角色的人们之间的联系将导致网络纽带系统中的同质性。 这在三个领域很常见：工作场所（例如，人力资源部门的所有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）以及非正式网络。


认知过程 Cognitive Processes：具有人口统计学相似性的人倾向于拥有共同的知识，因此他们更容易交流和分享文化品味，这也可能产生同质性。


后果 Effects

根据一项研究，感知到人际间的相似性不仅可以产生“喜欢别人”的效果，还可以提高协调能力并增加预期的互动收益。[13] 另一项研究声称同质性在社会空间中产生宽容与合作。[5] 但是，同质性模式对于少数群体来说，也可能限制信息的获取和接纳性。[14]


同质性对信息和行为传播的影响也很复杂。 一些研究声称，同质性促进了信息的获取，[15]创新和行为的传播[16]以及社会规范的形成。[17] 但是，其他研究强调了同质性可以维持分歧，加剧意见极化并减缓整体共识形成的机制。[6][18]


同质性是门当户对的婚姻——即具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻——产生的一个原因。[19]同质性是一个生育率的要素。 在倾向于结识具有相似特征的人中，我们发现生育几率增加了。[20]

参见


参考文献

  1. ↑ 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. ↑ 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.
  3. ↑ Retica, Aaron (10 December 2006). "Homophily". New York Times.
  4. ↑ 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. ↑ 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. ↑ 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.
  7. ↑ Paul Lazarsfeld, and Robert K. Merton 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 Reinhold.
  8. ↑ 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.
  9. ↑ 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.
  10. ↑ Marsden, P. V. 1988. "Homogeneity in confiding relations." Social Networks 10:57–76.
  11. ↑ 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.
  12. ↑ 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.
  13. ↑ 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.
  14. ↑ 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.
  15. ↑ Choudhury, M. D (2010). ""Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media". arXiv:1006.1702 [cs.CY].
  16. ↑ 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.
  17. ↑ 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.
  18. ↑ 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)
  19. ↑ Fiore, A. T. and Donath, J. S. (2005). "Homophily in Online Dating: When Do You Like Someone Like Yourself?". MIT Media Lab.
  20. ↑ Thomas Fent; Belinda Aparicio Diaz; Alexia Prskawetz (2013). "Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure". Demographic Research. 29 (37).

本中文词条由信白 参与编译， Miyasaki 审校，薄荷编辑，欢迎在讨论页面留言。

本词条内容源自wikipedia及公开资料，遵守 CC3.0协议。

取自“https://wiki.swarma.org/index.php?title=同质性&oldid=19031”