CONNECTIONS - INSNA
CONNECTIONS - INSNA
CONNECTIONS - INSNA
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
<strong>CONNECTIONS</strong><br />
Configurations of Homophily<br />
elements of the power set). With five<br />
sociodemographic dimensions there are 32<br />
possible configurations. Given a large number<br />
of individuals who are heterogeneous along<br />
several dimensions, it is not surprising that all<br />
configurations of homophily are represented.<br />
The first row is the null set, absence of<br />
homophily on all five dimensions. The most<br />
common configuration is number 16, which<br />
includes similarity on four of the five<br />
dimensions (Sex, Race, Education, and<br />
Religion). This configuration contains 27%<br />
more relationships than the second most<br />
frequent configuration (number 32), which is the<br />
complete homophily configuration.<br />
Configuration Frequency<br />
To determine which configurations occur more<br />
often than expected by chance it is necessary to<br />
compare the observed number of relations in<br />
each configuration to a baseline level that<br />
represents random association. The theoretical<br />
baseline population in this research comprises<br />
all possible relations in the United States in<br />
1985. Like many surveys of the general<br />
population, the GSS underrepresents males<br />
(Davis & Smith, 1996) and the marginal<br />
distributions of other demographic dimensions<br />
do not match U.S. population estimates. To<br />
create a representative baseline, the data were<br />
weighted to reflect the general population using<br />
U.S. census estimates from 1985 to weight by<br />
age, sex, and race and from 1990 to weight by<br />
education (U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000).<br />
Respondents were not weighted by religion as<br />
the GSS comprises the best available national<br />
estimate of religious identification. Using the<br />
GSS as the basis for computing the baseline,<br />
rather than census estimates that don’t include<br />
religion, has the advantage of preserving the<br />
consolidation of parameters. Maintaining the<br />
correlation of dimensions within individuals is<br />
vital when examining how multiple dimensions<br />
simultaneously draw people together. An<br />
expected proportion was computed for every<br />
configuration of homophily and can be seen in<br />
the Baseline column of Table 1 (computation of<br />
the baseline is presented in the Appendix).<br />
Examination of Table 1 reveals that the<br />
distribution of dyads across configurations<br />
varies from that expected by chance. For<br />
instance, the top row represents relations that are<br />
different on all five dimensions. Examining the<br />
“All” column we see that the 0.1% of dyads<br />
observed in this configuration is well below the<br />
3.1% expected by chance. Conversely, the<br />
12.8% of dyads in the bottom row, homophily<br />
on all dimensions, is well above the 1.6%<br />
expected by chance. To evaluable how<br />
dimensions interact to affect the frequency of<br />
observed dyads, each configuration was coded<br />
as exceeding the baseline frequency or not. This<br />
was determined using a z-test for proportions<br />
with an alpha of .05. Those configurations<br />
whose proportion was significantly higher than<br />
the baseline proportion were coded as 1;<br />
otherwise they were coded as 0. Ten<br />
configurations occurred more often than<br />
expected by chance while twenty-two did not.<br />
Role relations correspond to common foci that<br />
bring people together and provide the<br />
opportunity for relationships to develop<br />
(Marsden, 1990). Examining role relations<br />
independently can provide insight to the<br />
multidimensional nature of homophily induced<br />
through substructures. The GSS allowed<br />
respondents to select multiple ways in which<br />
they were connected to each alter. This research<br />
utilizes the following relations: kin, coworkers,<br />
friends, and group members. Since kin relations<br />
evolve through a different process than most<br />
other relations a distinction was made between<br />
kin and nonkin. Relations with parents, siblings,<br />
children, and other family members were<br />
collapsed into the kin relation. To help ascertain<br />
the homophily induced by substructural foci and<br />
not pre-existing kin relations, only nonkin<br />
friends, coworkers, and group members were<br />
considered. Table 1 reports the distribution of<br />
dyads across homophily configurations by type<br />
of role relation. The proportion of dyads of each<br />
relation type in each configuration was<br />
compared to the baseline, with those exceeding<br />
26