Homophily Theory
1
Name of Theory: Homophily Theory
Name of Theorists: Paul Lazarsfeld and Robert K. Merton
Biography of Theorists:
Paul Lazarsfeld (February 13, 1901-August 30, 1976) was considered the “founder of
modern empirical sociology”. Lazarsfeld was born in Austria to Jewish parents. He attended
school in Vienna and eventually received a doctorate in mathematics. His expertise in
mathematics and quantitative methods catapulted his career as a sociology theorist. He was the
founder of Columbia University’s Bureau of Applied Social Research and had many
contributions to American Sociology. He published many articles and worked at several
universities. Lazarsfeld was highly educated and served as a mentor to many young sociologists.
His interest in mass media during World War II resulted in a collaborating with Elihu Katz,
another well known theorist. Together they published, Personal Influence, which led to the
development of the two-step flow of communication model. He also partnered with Robert
Merton to study the functional roles of society which led into the homophily theory. Paul
Lazarsfeld passed away in 1976 and was survived by his son, Robert Lazarsfeld, who like his
father is a professor in mathematics.
Robert K. Merton (July 4, 1910-February 23, 2003) is best known for creating the terms
“self-fulfilling prophecy” and “role model” which are valuable terms used in research today.
Merton grew up in Philadelphia and applied to Harvard to work as a research assistant. He
worked at a numerous colleges including; Harvard, Tulane, and Columbia University, where he
spent the majority of his career. He also received numerous awards which included the
Guggenheim Fellowship and the MacArthur Fellow. In 1994, he received the US National
Homophily Theory
2
Medal of Science for developing the “self-fulfilling prophecy. More than 20 universities have
issued Merton with “honorary degrees”. Some of his most famous research involves his works
on middle range theory, dysfunction and deviance. Merton was very passionate about sociology
throughout his life and continuously studied the importance of social and cultural structures.
Description of Theory:
Have you ever heard the quote; “Birds of a feather flock together”? If so then you are
familiar with the homophily theory. Homophily exists in almost all of our relationships, whether
those relationships are with friends, co-workers, spouses, or significant others. It exists within
all cultures, races, genders, socio-economic backgrounds, social statuses, and educational arenas.
Humans tend to stay connected to those that are most similar to themselves. According to
McPherson, Smith-Lovin, and Cook (2001), homophily is the principle that a contact between
similar people occurs at a higher rate than among dissimilar people. Some theorists have called
homophily the “birds of a feather flock together” syndrome. In 1954, sociologists, Paul
Lazarsfeld and Robert Merton, developed the homophily theory in their study of friendship
processes in Hilltown and Craftown. In this study, the authors identified two types of
homophily: status homophily and value homophily.
Status homophily relates directly to demographic factors. There are many dynamics
that make up status homophily. These include the following:
1. Race and ethnicity. McPherson et al (2001), found that race and ethnicity is clearly
the biggest divide in social networks today in the United States, and they play a
major part in structuring the networks in other ethnically diverse societies as well.
Homophily Theory
3
2. Sex and Gender. Upon entering school, children have learned that gender is a
permanent characteristic and researchers have found that girls have a tendency to
play in smaller groups than boys.
3. Age. Researchers have found that age homophily varies. Shrum, Cheek and
Hunter (1988), researched the fact that schools group ages together into classrooms
which in turn induces strong homophily, however this tendency weakens as
children move from early to later grades.
4. Religion. Ties between people with the same religion are more likely to be close
ties of giving emergency help, loaning money, giving trusted advice or even
therapeutic counseling, while the less intense ties of hobby and work talk often
show less religious homophily (Feld 1984, Marx & Spray 1972).
5. Education, Occupation, and Social Class. There is significant research that shows
homophily is characterized based on these achievements. The type of education
one has can affect both their workplace and social class.
Value homophily results from shared beliefs and values and focuses on internal states
that help shape our orientation towards future behaviors. These may include; attitudes, abilities,
beliefs, and aspirations. Bandura (1986), suggests that personal beliefs and behaviors are
learnable through environmental interactions. As humans, we tend to value the beliefs and
attitudes of our social circle of friends, relatives, co-workers or religious affiliates.
There are several distinct causes of homophily. Geography is considered the most
basic source. We are in contact with those that surround us, therefore we are most like those in
our geographical location. With modern technology, it is much easier for us to connect with
people in various geographical locations. Family ties and/or connections also connect us to those
Homophily Theory
4
that are similar and different. According to McPherson et al, because of their strong affective
bonds and slow decay, family ties often allow for much greater value, attitudinal, and behavioral
heterophily than would be common in more voluntary, easier to dissolve ties formed in
organizational foci.
Theory Measurement/Instrumentation:
Some of the earliest studies on homophily were strictly concentrated on very small
social peer groups. According to McPherson et al, in these early studies, an ethnographic
observer could easily ascertain all of the ties between members (whether those ties were
behavioral, like sitting together at a cafeteria table, or reported, as when an informant tells about
his or her close friends). Therefore, our first systematic evidence of homophily in informal
network ties came from school children, college students, and small urban neighborhoods.
Kandel (1978), suggests that homophily occurs through two different mechanisms: socialization
and selection. Socialization occurs as peer group members share and learn appropriate behaviors
from each other. Selection happens when peer groups seek out potential members that already
have perceived attributes similar to the group, and individuals seek out potential peer groups. In
a recent study by Jones, Alexander, and Estell (2010), they utilized the Motivated Strategies for
Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) to examine whether peer group members hold similar levels of
self-regulated learning.
In 2008, a study was conducted on 265 students who were given a questionnaire
consisting of a series of questions regarding credibility and interpersonal attraction ratings for the
presidential candidates, Barack Obama and John McCain. Homophily was measured on the twodimensional scale developed by J.C. McCroskey, V.P. Richmond, and J.A Daly in 1975 that was
Homophily Theory
5
used to determine attitude and background. The two-dimensional scale model is shown in
Figure 1.
Prepared by: Jennifer Duncan
References:
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Feld S. 1984. The structured use of personal associates. Soc. Forces 62: 640-52.
Kandel, D. B. (1978). Homophily, selection, and socialization in adolescent friendships.
American Journal of Sociology, 84, 427-436.
Marx JH, Spray SL. 1972. Psychotherapeutic “birds of a feather”: social class status and religiocultural value homophily in the mental health field. J. Health Soc. Behav. 13:413-28.
McCroskey, J. C., Richmond, V. P., & Daly, J. A. (1975). The development of a measure of
perceived homophily in interpersonal communication. Human Communication Research,
1, 323-332.
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J.M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in Social
Networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27. 415-444.
Shrum W, Cheek NH Jr., Hunter SM. 188. Friendship in school: gender and racial homophily.
Soc. Educ. 61:227-39.
Homophily Theory
Figure 1.
Attitude Homophily Scale
(Name of person the to whom participant is asked to respond)
1. Is like me
2. Is different from me
7
6 5
1
4 3
2 3
2
4 5
1
6
Is unlike me
7
Is similar to me
3. Thinks like me
7
6 5
4 3
2
1
Does not think like me
4. Doesn't behave like me
1
2 3
4 5
6
7
Behaves like me
Background Homophily Scale
(Name of person the to whom participant is asked to respond)
1. Has status like mine
7
6 5
4 3
4 5
1
Has status different from mine
2. Is from a different social class
1
3. Is culturally different
2 3
4 5
6
4. Has an economic situation like mine 7
economic situation like mine
6 5
4 3
1
2 3
2
6
7
Scoring:
Add the numbers you circled for each measure separately.
Scores for each concept must be between 4 and 28.
7 Is from the same social class
Is culturally similar
2
1
Does not have an
6