From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Homophily (from Ancient Greek ὁμός (homós) 'same, common', and φιλία (philía) 'friendship, love') is a concept in sociology describing 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]

The opposite of homophily is heterophily or intermingling.[4] 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.[5]

Homophily has a variety of consequences for social and economic outcomes.[6]

Types and dimensions[edit]

Baseline vs. inbreeding[edit]

To test the relevance of homophily, researchers have distinguished between two types:[2]

  • Baseline homophily: simply the amount of homophily that would be expected by chance given an existing uneven distribution of people with varying characteristics; and
  • Inbreeding homophily: the amount of homophily over and above this expected value, typically due to personal preferences and choices.[7]

Status vs. value[edit]

In their original formulation of homophily, Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton (1954) distinguished between status homophily and value homophily; individuals with similar social status characteristics were more likely to associate with each other than by chance:[8][2]

  • Status homophily: includes both society-ascribed characteristics (e.g. race, ethnicity, sex, and age) and acquired characteristics (e.g., religion, occupation, behavior patterns, and education).[9]
  • Value homophily: involves association with others who have similar values, attitudes, and beliefs, regardless of differences in status characteristics.[9]


Race and ethnicity[edit]

Social networks in the United States today are strongly divided by race and ethnicity,[10] which account for a large proportion of inbreeding homophily (though classification by these criteria can be problematic in sociology due to fuzzy boundaries and different definitions of race[11]).

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]

Sex and gender[edit]

In terms of sex and gender, the baseline homophily networks were relatively low compared to race and ethnicity. In this form of homophily men and women frequently live together and have large populations that are normally equal in size. It is also common to find higher levels of gender homophily among school students.[12] Most sex homophily are a result of inbreeding homophily.[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).[13] 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]


Homophily based on religion is due to both baseline and inbreeding homophily. Those that belong in the same religion are more likely to exhibit acts of service and aid to one another, such as loaning money, giving therapeutic counseling, and other forms of help during moments of emergency. Parents have been shown to have higher levels of religious homophily than nonparent, which supports the notion that religious institutions are sought out for the benefit of children.[2]

Education, occupation and social class[edit]

Family of birth accounts for considerable baseline homophily with respect to education, occupation, and social class. In terms of education, there is a divide among those who have a college education and those who do not. Another major distinction can be seen between those with white collar occupations and blue collar occupations. [2]


Homophily occurs within groups of people that have similar interests as well. We enjoy interacting more with individuals who share similarities with us, so we tend to actively seek out these connections.[14] Additionally, as more users begin to rely on the Internet to find like minded communities for themselves, many examples of niches within social media sites have begun appearing to account for this need. This response has led to the popularity of sites like Reddit in the 2010s, advertising itself as a "home to thousands of communities...and authentic human interaction."[15]

Social media[edit]

As social networks are largely divided by race, social-networking websites like Facebook also foster homophilic atmospheres.[16] 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."[17] This homophily can foster divides and echo chambers on social networking sites, where people of similar ideologies only interact with each other.

Causes and effects[edit]


Geography: Baseline homophily often arises when the people who are located nearby also have similar characteristics.[18] 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.

Family ties: These ties decay slowly, but familial ties, specifically that of domestic partners, fulfill many requisites that generate homophily. Family relationships are generally close and keep frequent contact though they may be at great geographic distances. Ideas that may get lost in other relational contexts, will often instead lead to actions in this setting.[19]

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.[20]

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.

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.


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."[21] Another study claims that homophily produces tolerance and cooperation in social spaces.[22] However, homophilic patterns can also restrict access to information or inclusion for minorities.[23]

Nowadays, the restrictive patterns of homophily can be widely seen within social media. This selectiveness within social media networks can be traced back to the origins of Facebook and the transition of users from MySpace to Facebook in the early 2000’s.[24] One study of this shift in a network’s user base from danah boyd (2011) found that this perception of homophily impacted many individuals' preference of one site over another.[25] Most users chose to be more active on the site their friends were on. However, along with the complexities of belongingness, people of similar ages, economic class, and prospective futures (higher education and/or career plans) shared similar reasons for favoring one social media platform. The different features of homophily affected their outlook of each respective site.

The effects of homophily on the diffusion of information and behaviors are also complex. Some studies have claimed that homophily facilitates access information,[26] the diffusion of innovations and behaviors,[27] and the formation of social norms.[28] Other studies, however, highlight mechanisms through which homophily can maintain disagreement, exacerbate polarization of opinions, lead to self segregation between groups, and slow the formation of an overall consensus.[29][30]

As online users have a degree of power to form and dictate the environment, the effects of homophily continue to persist. On Twitter, terms such as “Stan Twitter”, “Black Twitter”, or “Local Twitter”[31] have also been created and popularized by users to separate themselves based on specific dimensions.

Homophily is a cause of homogamy—marriage between people with similar characteristics.[32] Homophily is a fertility factor; an increased fertility is seen in people with a tendency to seek acquaintance among those with common characteristics.[33] Governmental family policies have a decreased influence on fertility rates in such populations.[33]

See also[edit]


  1. ^ Ferguson, Niall (August 15, 2017). "The False Prophecy of Hyperconnection". Foreign Affairs. Archived from the original on May 1, 2018. 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. ^ a b c d e f g h 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. S2CID 2341021.
  3. ^ Retica, Aaron (10 December 2006). "Homophily". New York Times. Archived from the original on 15 June 2018. Retrieved 22 February 2017.
  4. ^ Lozares, Carlos; Verd, Joan Miquel; Cruz, Irene; Barranco, Oriol (2013-08-07). "Homophily and heterophily in personal networks. From mutual acquaintance to relationship intensity". Quality & Quantity. 48 (5): 2657–2670. doi:10.1007/s11135-013-9915-4. ISSN 0033-5177. S2CID 144566559. Archived from the original on 2023-02-04. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  5. ^ 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. S2CID 14484725.
  6. ^ Jackson, Matthew O. (2010-11-01). Social and Economic Networks. Princeton University Press. doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4gh1. ISBN 978-1-4008-3399-3. JSTOR j.ctvcm4gh1. S2CID 155715415. Archived from the original on 2021-05-07. Retrieved 2021-07-02.
  7. ^ Currarini, Sergio; Matheson, Jesse; Vega-Redondo, Fernando (November 2016). "A simple model of homophily in social networks". European Economic Review. 90: 18–39. doi:10.1016/j.euroecorev.2016.03.011. ISSN 0014-2921. Archived from the original on 2023-02-04. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  8. ^ 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.
  9. ^ a b Sun, Shujing; Rui, Huaxia (2017). "Link Formation on Twitter: The Role of Achieved Status and Value Homophily". Proceedings of the 50th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (2017). Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences. doi:10.24251/hicss.2017.676. ISBN 9780998133102.
  10. ^ Moody, James (November 2001). "Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America". American Journal of Sociology. 107 (3): 679–716. doi:10.1086/338954. ISSN 0002-9602. S2CID 145265678.
  11. ^ Deaux, Kay (2018-05-01). "Ethnic/Racial Identity: Fuzzy Categories and Shifting Positions". The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 677 (1): 39–47. doi:10.1177/0002716218754834. ISSN 0002-7162. S2CID 149999583.
  12. ^ 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.
  13. ^ Marsden, P. V. 1988. "Homogeneity in confiding relations." Social Networks 10:57–76.
  14. ^ Lauw, Hady; Shafer, John C.; Agrawal, Rakesh; Ntoulas, Alexandros (March 2010). "Homophily in the Digital World: A LiveJournal Case Study". IEEE Internet Computing. 14 (2): 15–23. doi:10.1109/mic.2010.25. ISSN 1089-7801. S2CID 6892528. Archived from the original on 2023-02-04. Retrieved 2022-03-13.
  15. ^ "Homepage - Reddit". www.redditinc.com. Archived from the original on 2020-10-10. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
  16. ^ 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. S2CID 12761051.
  17. ^ McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn; Cook, James M. (2003-11-28). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks". Annual Review of Sociology. 27 (1): 415–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415. S2CID 2341021.
  18. ^ Yates, Jon (2021). Fractured: why our societies are coming apart and how we put them back together again. HarperNorth. pp. 136–52. ISBN 9780008463960.
  19. ^ Ruef, Martin; Aldrich, Howard E.; Carter, Nancy M. (April 2003). "The Structure of Founding Teams: Homophily, Strong Ties, and Isolation among U.S. Entrepreneurs". American Sociological Review. 68 (2): 195. doi:10.2307/1519766. JSTOR 1519766. S2CID 145173633. Archived from the original on 2022-01-20. Retrieved 2022-01-21.
  20. ^ Chancellor, J.; Layous, K.; Margolis, S.; Lyubomirsky, S. (2017). "APA PsycNet". Emotion. 17 (8): 1166–1180. doi:10.1037/emo0000311. PMID 28358560. S2CID 14600185. Archived from the original on 2021-10-02. Retrieved 2021-10-02.
  21. ^ 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.
  22. ^ 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.
  23. ^ 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. PMC 6056555. PMID 30038426.
  24. ^ Tancer, Bill (2007-10-24). "Archived copy". Time. ISSN 0040-781X. Archived from the original on 2021-05-10. Retrieved 2020-10-10.{{cite magazine}}: CS1 maint: archived copy as title (link)
  25. ^ "White Flight in Networked Public? How Race and Class Shaped American Teen Engagement with MySpace and Facebook" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2021-03-25. Retrieved 2020-10-09.
  26. ^ Choudhury, M. D (2010). ""Birds of a feather": Does user homophily impact information diffusion in social media". arXiv:1006.1702 [cs.CY].
  27. ^ 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 doi:10.1056/nejmsa066082. PMID 17652652. S2CID 264194973. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2020-11-11. Retrieved 2014-12-02.
  28. ^ 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. S2CID 18831420. Archived from the original on 2021-02-26. Retrieved 2019-09-06.
  29. ^ Golub, Benjamin; Jackson, Matthew O. (2012-07-26). "How Homophily Affects the Speed of Learning and Best-Response Dynamics". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. Oxford University Press (OUP). 127 (3): 1287–1338. doi:10.1093/qje/qjs021. ISSN 0033-5533.
  30. ^ 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. arXiv:physics/0609213. doi:10.1177/0022002707307632. S2CID 17351007.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  31. ^ Lorenz, Taylor (2018-07-03). "How Twitter Became Home to the Teen Status Update". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 2018-12-27. Retrieved 2020-10-10.
  32. ^ Fiore, A. T. and Donath, J. S. (2005). "Homophily in Online Dating: When Do You Like Someone Like Yourself?" Archived 2017-08-09 at the Wayback Machine. MIT Media Lab.
  33. ^ a b Thomas Fent; Belinda Aparicio Diaz; Alexia Prskawetz (2013). "Family policies in the context of low fertility and social structure". Demographic Research. 29 (37). Archived from the original on 2018-06-02. Retrieved 2016-02-20.