ASL Homophily of Online and Face to Face Social Ties

1
A/S/L? Homophily of Online and Face to Face
Social Ties

• Gustavo S. Mesch Ilan Talmud
• Department of Sociology and Anthropology,
  University of Haifa

2
Theoretical Postulates

• Social Relationships are embedded in social
  contexts.
• Everyday activities (learning, work, leisure)
  bring people together, and attraction is based on
  social similarity.
• Foci of activities structure opportunities and
  constrains of sociability.
• Individual decisions of relationships formation
  is nested in structured foci of activities.

3
Social Homophily

• Friendship formation, development and
  maintainance is based on homophily.
• Homophily means that friendship occurs at a
  higher rate among similar individuals.
• Shared status and life experience increases the
  likelihood of tie formation and tie stability.

4
Social Networks Online and Off-Line

• Social capital is all egos ties, and the
  resources (virtual or real) that flow through
  egos network.
• Internet is an integral part of contemporary
  social networks and a channel of interpersonal
  communication.
• Evidence show that adolescents are creating and
  maintaining social contacts through the Internet.

5
Study and Research Questions

• Does Internet Activity decreases homophily?
• The Study
• Representative sample of Israeli adolescents
  (n1000).
• Data on characteristics of ego-networks (up to 6
  friends).
• Data on attributes of respondent.
• Data on Internet activity.

6
Methods

• Network data on persons defined as friends by
  respondent.
• Respondents named 6 friends.
• Respondents asked about each alters age, gender,
  place of residence, how they met, main channel of
  communication, duration of friendship and topics
  of discussion.

7
Analytical Strategy

• Two levels data
• Ego attributes and social ties
• Alters attributes (from egos report)
• gt Resulting ego-networks structure

8
Age Similarity Measurement

• Age similarity we subtracted egos average age
  from alters average age. Then a dummy variable
  for similarity was created c 1 if the age is
  similar and 0 if age is different.

9
Similarity of Adolescents to their Friends
According to AgeLow Similarity for Adolescents
with Access
10
Age Similarity According to Place in which the
Friend was Met Low Similarity with Friends met
Online
11
Findings Age Similarity

• On average, age similarity is lower for
  Adolescents with Internet access.
• On average, age similarity is lower for
  adolescents that met friends online, in contrast
  with meeting at school and neighborhood.
• Multivariate analysis controlling for age,
  gender, parental education, nationality, number
  of siblings and self esteem, the likelihood of
  having friends similar in age decreases for
  adolescents that met friends online.

12
Gender Heterogeneity 1- S p2(1 indicates high
IQV-------------- heterogeneity)
(k-1)/kHighest gender heterogeneity for
adolescents with access .29 to .40
13
Gender heterogeneity according to place friend
was metHighest heterogeneity for friends met
online .27 .32 .48)
14
Gender Heterogeneity of Social Network

• Heterogeneity of social network is higher for
  adolescents with Internet Access.
• Heterogeneity of social network is almost twice
  higher for friends met online in contrast to
  friends met at school.
• Multivariate Analysis Network gender
  heterogeneity is increased by adolescents age,
  meeting friends online controlling for gender,
  parental education, nationality, number of
  siblings, connection to the internet, self
  esteem.

15
Heterogeneity in Place of Residence IQVHighest
for Adolescents with Internet Access but
differences minor(.147 to .254
16
Heterogeneity in Place of ResidenceHighest
heterogeneity for adolescents that met friends
online- but heterogeneity is still low .19, .16.
.31
17
Heterogeneity in place of residence

• Indication that heterogeneity is higher for
  adolescents with internet access and the ones
  that met friends online.
• Heterogeneity in terms of place of residence is
  still low for all groups (less than .31).
• Multivariate analysis confirms that age and
  internet friends are a source of heterogeneity in
  place of residence of friends.

18
Discussion

• Individual ties are nested in foci of activity.
• Demography, geography and technology affect
  individuals choices of friends and network
  heterogeneity.
• Networks of adolescents that make friends online
  are broader in age, gender and place of
  residence.
• Networks of online children are more
  heterogeneous according to age and place of
  residence.
• Youth are being exposed to non similar ties.

19
Further Studies needed

• How heterogeneous networks affect the strength of
  ties?
• How network homophily is affected by age
  distribution of the population?
• How heterogeneous networks affect the stability
  of social ties?
• Does network heterogeneity creates diversity in
  terms of values, attitudes and tastes?
• Are youth with heterogeneous networks in danger
  of abuse?