|WikiProject Psychology||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Sociology||(Rated Start-class)|
I just deleted the links:
This page could use a lot of improvement
Right now the page seems to be bare-bones and little more than definitional. Could someone with knowledge of the research done in the field expand the article? Preferably, with several section headers delineating the major subtopics associated with the term? Robert K S (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
- I agree: this article has all the facts straight, but the language seriously needs editing. I am not a native speaker, so I better step back. Maybe someone could just go over it and look at some of the constructions, plus there are quite a few typos as well. But thanks for the groundwork! WernR (talk) 07:38, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Siyang26 (talk) 20:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)SI YANG To Xue Jing and Danchen Zhang: So far, we have talked about the following parts, which might be revised, including: 1) Positive/negative impact of Homophily 2) History of study of Homophily 3) Homophily types: status homophily and value homophily 4) Relationships of Homophily: strong ties and weak ties 5) Causes of Homophily: one is structural sources: geography, family ties, organization Foci; the other is cognitive sources: taste, value and cognition 6) Homophily dissolute, reasons of certain type of homophily
From my point of view, if just choosing three most important parts to revise, I would like to select 1) positive/negative impact of Homophily, 3) Homophily types: status homophily and value homophily, and 5) Causes of Homophily: 1) structural sources: geography, family ties, organization Foci 2) cognitive sources: taste, value and cognition.
Siyang26 (talk) 20:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)SI YANG To Danchen Zhang: It's worthwhile to study which kind of homophily will more easily die. Because it may have a real value to be studied and applied on social networks. And I think we can investigate what kind of factors result in such deaths for certain types of homophily. Was it mentioned with any causation of such deaths in the papers you referred to?
EvaXue (talk) 15:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)Jing XUE To Si Yang and DanChen Zhang: Can we just choose two or three main aspects based on our current finding? Too much information might not necessary. How do you think? Which aspects might be most important?
I find we can add a module for "the cause of homophily", mainly including geograph, family, organizational (i.e. work), same position or level, similar taste and cognition. Another part we can improve is how homophily dissolute? which kind of homophily will more easily die?
looking through the paper listed in this article. I find out some points we can add into this article: First, the positive/ negative impact of Homophily. Second, history of homophily study. Third, homophily types. we can read some recent articles to expand these parts.
According to the paper by Miller McPherson, et. al., homophily is usually classified into two categories: status homophily and value homophily. In terms of status homophily, we can discuss it mainly from the following aspects: race and ethnicity, sex and gender, age, religion, education, occupation and social class. For value homophily, we can focus on the behavior, attitudes, abilities, beliefs and aspirations. Meanwhile, the weights of the impact of each aspects on the two types of homophily might be worthy of being discussed.
Besides, the relationships of homophily include strong ties and weak ties. More contents could be added to clarify and differentiate the two ties between these two types.
Moreover, we can complement the part of causes of homophily, which means the major sources of homophily. For structural sources, geography, family ties, organization Foci might be good starting points to discuss.
Besides, we can also talk about the cognitive sources of homophily based on previous psychological research.
- McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). "Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks". Annual Review of Sociology. 27:415–444.