IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v13y2023i2p21582440231173915.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Theoretical Examination of Homophily Beyond Focus Theory: Causes, Consequences, and New Directions

Author

Listed:
  • Anson Au

Abstract

Scott Feld’s focus theory stimulated one of the most important traditions in the study of the concept of homophily in connection to individual action and network behavior across sociology and organizational studies. This article uses Feld’s focus theory as a starting point of reference to examine the major theoretical developments and empirical applications of homophily since his pioneering work. First, this article interrogates the causes of homophily by examining structured versus social psychological preference for similarity as two prominent explanatory mechanisms for homophily. Second, this article scopes out the consequences of homophily by examining the advantages and disadvantages of homophily for individual action and network behavior. Finally, building on the previous sections, this article proposes new areas for the study of homophily: deleterious psychosocial consequences of homophily, the role of multiplexity in causing homophily, and the disaggregation of homophily in general into different, nuanced (potentially interacting) types of homophily. This article thus contributes to the literature by offering a critical juncture to examine the key arguments that have guided the study of homophily since Feld’s focus theory and an important launching point for future research on the concept of homophily and its applications.

Suggested Citation

  • Anson Au, 2023. "A Theoretical Examination of Homophily Beyond Focus Theory: Causes, Consequences, and New Directions," SAGE Open, , vol. 13(2), pages 21582440231, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231173915
    DOI: 10.1177/21582440231173915
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/21582440231173915
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/21582440231173915?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alina Sîrbu & Dino Pedreschi & Fosca Giannotti & János Kertész, 2019. "Algorithmic bias amplifies opinion fragmentation and polarization: A bounded confidence model," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(3), pages 1-20, March.
    2. Ronald S. Burt, 1998. "The Gender Of Social Capital," Rationality and Society, , vol. 10(1), pages 5-46, February.
    3. Alessandro Di Stefano & Marialisa Scatà & Aurelio La Corte & Pietro Liò & Emanuele Catania & Ermanno Guardo & Salvatore Pagano, 2015. "Quantifying the Role of Homophily in Human Cooperation Using Multiplex Evolutionary Game Theory," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(10), pages 1-21, October.
    4. Gino Cattani & Simone Ferriani, 2008. "A Core/Periphery Perspective on Individual Creative Performance: Social Networks and Cinematic Achievements in the Hollywood Film Industry," Organization Science, INFORMS, vol. 19(6), pages 824-844, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gorji, Yasaman & Carney, Michael & Prakash, Rajshree, 2020. "Indirect nepotism: Network sponsorship, social capital and career performance in show business families," Journal of Family Business Strategy, Elsevier, vol. 11(3).
    2. Deb Verhoeven & Katarzyna Musial & Stuart Palmer & Sarah Taylor & Shaukat Abidi & Vejune Zemaityte & Lachlan Simpson, 2020. "Controlling for openness in the male-dominated collaborative networks of the global film industry," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(6), pages 1-23, June.
    3. Adrián A Díaz-Faes & Paula Otero-Hermida & Müge Ozman & Pablo D’Este, 2020. "Do women in science form more diverse research networks than men? An analysis of Spanish biomedical scientists," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(8), pages 1-21, August.
    4. Kumar, Sanjesh & Singh, Baljeet, 2019. "Barriers to the international diffusion of technological innovations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 74-86.
    5. Lalanne, Marie & Seabright, Paul, 2011. "The Old Boy Network: Gender Differences in the Impact of Social Networks on Remuneration in Top Executive Jobs," IDEI Working Papers 689, Institut d'Économie Industrielle (IDEI), Toulouse.
    6. Florence Villesèche & Evis Sinani, 2023. "From Presence to Influence: Gender, Nationality and Network Centrality of Corporate Directors," Work, Employment & Society, British Sociological Association, vol. 37(2), pages 486-504, April.
    7. Muhamed Kudic & Wilfried Ehrenfeld & Toralf Pusch, 2015. "On the trail of core–periphery patterns in innovation networks: measurements and new empirical findings from the German laser industry," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 55(1), pages 187-220, October.
    8. Nathalie Greenan & Emmanuelle Walkowiak, 2005. "Informatique, organisation du travail et interactions sociales," Économie et Statistique, Programme National Persée, vol. 387(1), pages 35-63.
    9. Fikri Zul Fahmi, 2016. "Business networks, social capital and the productivity of creative industries in Indonesia," ERSA conference papers ersa16p351, European Regional Science Association.
    10. Lalanne, Marie & Seabright, Paul, 2016. "The old boy network: The impact of professional networks on remuneration in top executive jobs," SAFE Working Paper Series 123, Leibniz Institute for Financial Research SAFE.
    11. Youchung Kwon & Bo Kyung Kim, 2024. "When we unite, not divide: status homophily, group average status, and group performance in the Korean film industry," Asian Business & Management, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 23(1), pages 9-31, February.
    12. Hao Ren & Rongrong Wang & Suopeng Zhang & An Zhang, 2017. "How Do Internet Enterprises Obtain Sustainable Development of Organizational Ecology? A Case Study of LeEco Using Institutional Logic Theory," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(8), pages 1-21, August.
    13. Cristina Liébana-Presa & Elena Andina-Díaz & María-Mercedes Reguera-García & Iván Fulgueiras-Carril & David Bermejo-Martínez & Elena Fernández-Martínez, 2018. "Social Network Analysis and Resilience in University Students: An Approach from Cohesiveness," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(10), pages 1-13, September.
    14. Pham, Tho & Talavera, Oleksandr, 2018. "Discrimination, Social Capital, and Financial Constraints: The Case of Viet Nam," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 228-242.
    15. Jiafeng Gu & Ruiyu Zhu, 2020. "Social Capital and Self-Rated Health: Empirical Evidence from China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(23), pages 1-15, December.
    16. Marie-Christine Chalus-Sauvannet & Karine Demauras, 2019. "Caractéristiques et motivations des femmes Business Angels et leurs interactions avec les femmes entrepreneurs ?," Post-Print hal-02121737, HAL.
    17. Na Liu & Jiancheng Guan, 2015. "Dynamic evolution of collaborative networks: evidence from nano-energy research in China," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 1895-1919, March.
    18. Goodall, Amanda H. & Osterloh, Margit, 2015. "Women Have to Enter the Leadership Race to Win: Using Random Selection to Increase the Supply of Women into Senior Positions," IZA Discussion Papers 9331, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    19. Ann L. Owen & Judit Temesvary & Andrew Wei, 2024. "Gender and Professional Networks on Bank Boards," Journal of Financial Services Research, Springer;Western Finance Association, vol. 66(3), pages 227-262, December.
    20. Patrick Saparito & Amanda Elam & Candida Brush, 2013. "Bank–Firm Relationships: Do Perceptions Vary by Gender?," Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice, , vol. 37(4), pages 837-858, July.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:13:y:2023:i:2:p:21582440231173915. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.