Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily Among Confidants, 1985 to 2004 Jeffrey A

University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Sociology Department, Faculty Publications Sociology, Department of 4-2014 Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004 Jeffrey A. Smith University of Nebraska-Lincoln, [email protected] Miller McPherson Duke University, [email protected] Lynn Smith-Lovin Duke University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub Part of the Demography, Population, and Ecology Commons, Race and Ethnicity Commons, Social Psychology and Interaction Commons, and the Social Statistics Commons Smith, Jeffrey A.; McPherson, Miller; and Smith-Lovin, Lynn, "Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004" (2014). Sociology Department, Faculty Publications. 246. http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/sociologyfacpub/246 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Sociology, Department of at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Sociology Department, Faculty Publications by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. Published in American Sociological Review 79:3 (2014), pp. 432-456. doi: 10.1177/0003122414531776 Copyright © 2014 American Sociological Review. Used by permission. digitalcommons.unl.edu Published online April 24, 2014. Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004 Jeffrey A. Smith,1 Miller McPherson,2 and Lynn Smith-Lovin2 1. University of Nebraska-Lincoln 2. Duke University Corresponding author – Jeffrey A. Smith, Department of Sociology, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, 711 Oldfather Hall, Lincoln, NE 68588-0324, email [email protected] Abstract Homophily, the tendency for similar actors to be connected at a higher rate than dissimilar actors, is a pervasive social fact. In this article, we examine changes over a 20-year period in two types of homophily—the actual level of contact between people in different social categories and the level of contact relative to chance. We use data from the 1985 and 2004 General Social Surveys to ask whether the strengths of five social distinctions—sex, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, and education—changed over the past two decades in core discussion networks. Changes in the actual level of homophily are driven by the demographic composition of the United States. As the nation has become more diverse, cross- category contacts in race/ethnicity and religion have increased. After describing the raw homophily rates, we develop a case-control model to assess homophily relative to chance mixing. We find decreasing rates of homophily for gender but stability for race and age, al- though the young are increasingly isolated from older cohorts outside of the family. We also find some weak evidence for increasing educational and religious homophily. These rela- tional trends may be explained by changes in demographic heterogeneity, institutional segregation, economic inequality, and symbolic boundaries. Keywords: social distance, social networks, homophily, social structure, social change Birds of a feather have always flocked to- tions about the acceptability of marriage, en- gether. Building on classic works by Simmel tertainment in the home, co-residence in and Park, Borgardus (1925) coined the term neighborhoods, and other sorts of affilia- “social distance” to indicate whether peo- tions. Decades of research that followed have ple in one social category were willing to be informed our understanding of the cognitive closely associated with members of another prejudices present in the population (e.g., category. His social distance scale used ques- Hughes and Tuch 2003). With the increasing 432 Social Distance in the U.S.A.: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education 433 availability of network data, however, more fluence us directly through their supportive recent work has increasingly employed actual interactions (House, Umberson, and Landis patterns of interaction to measure social dis- 1988; Wellman and Wortley 1990) and indi- tance (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook rectly by shaping the kinds of people we be- 2001). The question of social distance has come (Smith-Lovin and McPherson 1993). If thus become more structural, reflecting the we are connected mainly to people much like social acceptability of affiliation and the phys- ourselves, we can see a very limited social hori- ical opportunities for interacting. zon. Homophily thus plays a key role in repro- This article follows the behavioral trend and ducing the economic and cultural differences uses homophily as a summary measure of so- between demographic groups (DiMaggio and cial distance across time and demographic di- Garip 2011). Everything from cultural tastes mensions. Homophily captures the tendency (Mark 1998) to attitudes (McPherson 2004) to for similar actors to be socially connected at a voluntary affiliations (Popielarz and McPher- higher rate than dissimilar actors; it is one of son 1995) become localized in social space to our best established social facts (Lazarsfeld the extent that we surround ourselves with and Merton 1954; McPherson et al. 2001). Ar- demographically similar others (McPherson guably, it is one of our most important. The 1983). In a real sense, you are who you know. top two most-cited articles in the Annual Re- Given homophily’s central importance, it view of Sociology both deal with networks, is surprising that we have so little knowledge their structure, and their impact on the flow of of whether this fundamental social fact has resources (i.e., Portes 1998 and McPherson et changed over time. Here, we ask whether the al. 2001, as reported by Annual Review of Soci- strength of homophily in close personal ties ology 2013). (defined as discussing important matters) Homophily is important because it mea- has changed over the period 1985 to 2004. sures the salience of sociodemographic fea- We use data from the 1985 and 2004 General tures in our social system (Blau and Schwartz Social Surveys (GSS) to examine five impor- 1984; Laumann 1966). A socially unimportant tant sociodemographic characteristics—sex, demographic dimension will exhibit low levels race/ethnicity, religion, age, and education— of homophily: social boundaries will be porous to see if the degree of homophily has changed and individuals will be free to form intimate in U.S. society. social ties with members of another group. Homophily can be seen as a behavioral expres- Change in Social Distance and Homophily sion of the larger differentiating forces in society—such as demographic availability, insti- Researchers have studied homophily in net- tutional segregation, and affective acceptance work ties that range from the closest ties of among categories of people. The size of demo- marriage (Mare 1991; Qian and Lichter 2007), graphic groups, for example, influences the the strong confidant relationships of “dis- probability that individuals will come into con- cussing important matters” (Marsden 1987, tact with each other by chance, and potentially 1988), and the intermediate ties of friendship overcomes the propensity for in-group associ- and trust (Moody 2001; Verbrugge 1977), to ation (Blau 1977). Demographic change is lim- the more circumscribed relationships of ca- ited as an integrating force, however, by resi- reer support at work (Ibarra 1992, 1995), ac- dential and occupational segregation, as well quaintance (DiPrete et al. 2010), appearing as status differences across a population. with others in a public place (Mayhew et al. Homophily in networks is also important 1995), mere contact (Wellman 1996), “know- because ideas, resources, and group affiliations ing about” someone (Hampton and Wellman flow through networks (McPherson, Popie- 2001), and even the negative ties of victimiza- larz, and Drobnic 1992). Close confidants in- tion (Sampson 1984). 434 Smith, McPherson, & Smith-Lovin in American Sociological Review 79 (2014) Most of the information we have about nomic inequality, and symbolic/cultural changes over significant periods of time in boundaries. We then describe how our five de- the network structure of our society come mographic dimensions should change in social from either the exclusive, close ties of mar- salience, given the observed changes in macro riage (Kalmijn 1998) or the much weaker ties level features. of co-employment (Tomaskovic-Devey 1993), co-residence (Massey and Denton 1993), or Demographic Change co-matriculation (Shrum, Cheek, and Hunter 1988). This is largely because these relations Demographic change can influence the tend to leave official records that researchers raw, or absolute, rate of contact between de- can access. Scholars have been able to track mographic groups. A long line of empirical the close but unofficial contacts among people and theoretical work (Blau 1977; Blau et al. over time only within relatively captive pop- 1984) demonstrates that increased hetero- ulations like schools, and then only for rel- geneity leads to more out-group ties. If there atively short periods (Kossinets and Watts are more Hispanics (or more members of any 2009; Moody 2001). other minority group), then the opportunity The best information comes from studies for Whites (the majority) to interact with that of marital homogamy (see review in Kalmijn

Load more