“同质性 Homophily”的版本间的差异
| 第143行： | 第143行： | ||
==Causes and effects== | ==Causes and effects== | ||
| + | 因果<br> | ||
| − | + | == Causes == | |
| + | 原因<br> | ||
{{Unreferenced section|date=July 2020}} | {{Unreferenced section|date=July 2020}} | ||
| 第154行： | 第156行： | ||
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. | ||
| − | + | 地理环境：当附近的人也具有相似的特征时，通常会产生基线同质性。 人们更可能与地理位置较远的人接触。 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。 | |
| − | |||
| 第162行： | 第163行： | ||
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 | + | '''<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联系。 这些纽带趋向于缓慢衰减，但是当新婚发生时，它们可以显着地重组。 |
| − | |||
| 第170行： | 第170行： | ||
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。 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线同质性。 | |
| − | |||
| 第178行： | 第177行： | ||
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. | ||
| − | + | 同构信息源：扮演同等角色的人们之间的联系将导致网络联系系统中的同质。 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。 | |
| − | |||
| 第186行： | 第184行： | ||
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：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，也可能产生同质性。 | |
| − | + | ==Effects== | |
| − | + | 结果<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 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> | ||
| 第196行： | 第194行： | ||
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. | 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，对人际相似性的感知不仅可以“喜欢他人”，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在社会空间中产生宽容与合作。 但是，同质模式也可能限制少数群体获得信息或将其纳入。 | |
| − | |||
| 第204行： | 第201行： | ||
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. | 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可以维持分歧，加剧意见分歧和减缓整体共识形成的机制。 | |
| − | |||
| 第212行： | 第208行： | ||
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. | 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. | ||
| − | + | 同性恋是同性婚姻的原因，即具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻。 同性恋是一个生育因素。 在具有共同特征的人中倾向于结识的人会发现生育力增加。 | |
| − | |||
| − | |||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
2020年9月25日 (五) 20:33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 Homophily （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.
同质性的相反是异构 heterophily 或混合 Intermingling 。 处于亲密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。 动物的交配对之间的同质性已在进化生物学领域进行了广泛的研究，这被称为分类交配 Assortative Mating 。 在自然动物的交配种群中，交配对之间的同质性很普遍。
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成果有多种影响，包括促进彼此之间的合作。
Types and dimensions
类型和尺寸
Baseline vs. inbreeding
基线与近交
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:
为了测试同质性的相关性，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
- 基线同质性 Baseline Homophily ：简单地讲，由于存在具有不同特征的人的不均匀分布，偶然地可以预期的同质性；
- Inbreeding homophily: the amount of homophily over and above this expected value, typically due to personal preferences and choices.
- 近亲繁殖 Inbreeding Homophily ：通常超出个人期望和选择，超出期望值的同构数量。
Status vs. value
状态与价值
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:
保罗·拉扎斯菲尔德（Paul Lazarsfeld）和罗伯特·K·默顿（Robert K.Merton）（1954）在最初的同构表述中，区分了地位同质和价值同质，发现具有相似社会地位特征的个体更可能彼此交往而不是偶然：
- Status homophily: includes both ascribed characteristics (e.g. race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and acquired characteristics (e.g., religion and education).
- 同质状态 Status Homophily ：既包括指定特征（例如种族，种族，性别和年龄），也包括获得的特征（例如宗教和教育）。
- Value homophily: involves association with others who think in similar ways, regardless of differences in status characteristics.
- 价值同质 Value Homophily ：涉及与以相似方式思考的其他人的联系，而不论身份特征如何。
Dimensions
外型尺寸
Race and ethnicity
种族与民族
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，在美国，社交网络在种族和族裔之间有很强的区分，种族和族裔在近亲近亲中占最大比例（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）。
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.
较小的组仅由于成员数而具有较低的多样性。 这倾向于使种族和少数民族群体具有更高的基线同质性。 种族和种族也与受教育程度和职业相关，这进一步增加了基线的同质性。
Sex and gender
性别
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.
关于性别，与种族和种族相比，网络的同质性相对较低。 男女经常生活在一起，人口众多且大小相等。 大多数同性是近交类型。
Age
年龄
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."
大多数同龄人属于基线类型。 Marsden（1988）发现了不同年龄组的近亲同质的有趣模式。 它表明某人的年龄与与他人交往方面的社交距离之间有很强的关系。 例如，某人的年龄差距越大，他们被较低年龄的其他人“讨论重要问题”的机率就越小。
Religion
宗教
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.
基于宗教的同质性是由于基线和近亲同性造成的。
Education, occupation and social class
教育，职业和社会阶层教育，职业和社会阶层
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相当大的基线同质性。
Social media
社交媒体
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因种族而异，因此诸如Facebook之类的社交网站也营造了同情的氛围。 当Facebook用户“喜欢”某种特定意识形态的文章或帖子或与之互动时，Facebook继续显示该相似意识形态的用户帖子（Facebook相信会吸引他们）。 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”，从而对其所接收的信息，所形成的态度以及所经历的互动产生强大的影响。 。” 这种同质性可以促进社交网站上的分歧和回声室，在这里社交网络上意识形态相似的人只能相互交流。
Causes and effects
因果
Causes
原因
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.
地理环境：当附近的人也具有相似的特征时，通常会产生基线同质性。 人们更可能与地理位置较远的人接触。 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 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联系。 这些纽带趋向于缓慢衰减，但是当新婚发生时，它们可以显着地重组。
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。 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.
同构信息源：扮演同等角色的人们之间的联系将导致网络联系系统中的同质。 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.
认知过程：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，也可能产生同质性。
Effects
结果
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，对人际相似性的感知不仅可以“喜欢他人”，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在社会空间中产生宽容与合作。 但是，同质模式也可能限制少数群体获得信息或将其纳入。
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传播的影响也很复杂。 一些研究声称，同质促进了信息的获取，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可以维持分歧，加剧意见分歧和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.
同性恋是同性婚姻的原因，即具有相似特征的人之间的婚姻。 同性恋是一个生育因素。 在具有共同特征的人中倾向于结识的人会发现生育力增加。
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