Network externalities (where the value of a practice is a function of network alters that have already adopted the practice) are mechanisms that exacerbate social inequality under the condition of homophily (where advantaged individuals poised to be primary adopters are socially connected to other advantaged individuals). In their 2011 article, Dimaggio and Garip use an agent-based model of diffusion on a real-life population for empirical illustration and, thus, do not consider consolidation (correlation between traits), a population parameter that shapes network structure and diffusion. Using an agent-based model, this article shows that prior findings linking homophily to segregated social ties and to differential diffusion outcomes are contingent on high levels of consolidation. Homophily, under low consolidation, is not sufficient to exacerbate existing differences in adoption probabilities across groups and can even end up alleviating intergroup inequality by facilitating diffusion.
AllisonPaulScott LongJ.KrauzeTad K.. 1982. “Cumulative Advantage and Inequality in Science.” American Sociological Review47(5):615–25.
2.
ArrowKenneth J.BorzekowskiRon. 2004. “Limited Network Connections and the Distribution of Wages.” Finance Economics Discussion Series, 2004-41, Federal Reserve. Retrieved March 31, 2021 (http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/fipfedgfe/2004-41.htm).
3.
BlauPeter M.SchwartzJoseph E.. 1984. Cross-cutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrosociological Theory of Intergroup Relations. Orlando, FL: Academic.
4.
BoutylineAndrei. 2017. “Improving the Measurement of Shared Cultural Schemas with Correlational Class Analysis: Theory and Method.” Sociological Science4(15):353–93.
5.
BoydMonica. 1989. “Family and Personal Networks in International Migration: Recent Developments and New Agendas.” International Migration Review23:638–70.
6.
BruchElizabeth E.AtwellJon. 2015. “Agent-based Models in Empirical Social Research.” Sociological Methods & Research44(2):186–221.
7.
BurkeMary A.SassTim R.. 2013. “Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement.” Journal of Labor Economics31(1):51–82.
8.
Calvó-ArmengolAntoniJacksonMatthew O.. 2004. “The Effects of Social Networks on Employment and Inequality.” American Economic Review94(3):426–54.
9.
CentolaDamon. 2015. “The Social Origins of Networks and Diffusion.” American Journal of Sociology120(5):1295–338.
10.
CentolaDamonMacyMichael. 2007. “Complex Contagions and the Weakness of Long Ties.” American Journal of Sociology113(3):702–34.
11.
ColeStephen. 1970. “Professional Standing and the Reception of Scientific Discoveries.” American Journal of Sociology76(2):286–306.
12.
DiMaggioP.GaripF.. 2011. “How network externalities can exacerbate intergroup inequality.” American Journal of Sociology116(6):1887–1933.
13.
DiMaggioP.GaripF.. 2012. “Network effects and social inequality.” Annual review of sociology38:93–118.
14.
DiPreteThomas A.EirichGregory M.. 2006. “Cumulative Advantage as a Mechanism for Inequality: A Review of Theoretical and Empirical Developments.” Annual Review of Sociology32:271–97.
15.
ElwertFelixWinshipChristopher. 2014. “Endogenous Selection Bias: The Problem of Conditioning on a Collider Variable.” Annual Review of Sociology40:31–53.
16.
EppleDennisRomanoRichard E.. 2011. “Peer Effects in Education: A Survey of the Theory and Evidence.” Pp. 1053–163 in Handbook of Social Economics, Vol. 1, edited by BenhabibJ.BisinA.JacksonM. O.. New York: Elsevier.
17.
FischerClaude S.1977. Networks and Places: Social Relations in the Urban Setting. New York: Free Press.
18.
GamoranAdam. 2011. “Designing Instruction and Grouping Students to Enhance the Learning of All: New hope or False Promise?” Frontiers in Sociology of Education1(1):111–26.
19.
GaripFiliz. 2008. “Social Capital and Migration: How Do Similar Resources Lead to Divergent Outcomes?” Demography45(3):591–617.
20.
GaripFilizZhaoLinda. Forthcoming. “Mixing It Up? Social Cohesion under Population Mobility.” Pp. 1–7 in The Architecture of the Social, edited by HedstromP.YlikoskiP.
21.
GondalNeha. 2014. “Inequality Preservation through Uneven Diffusion of Cultural Materials across Stratified Groups.” Social Forces93(3):1109–37.
22.
GranovetterMark. 1974. Getting a Job. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
23.
GranovetterMark. 1978. “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology83(6):1420–43.
24.
KandelDenise B.1978. “Homophily, Selection, and Socialization in Adolescent Friendships.” American Journal of Sociology84(2):427–36.
25.
KossinetsGueorgiWattsDuncan J.. 2006. “Empirical Analysis of an Evolving Social Network.” Science311(5757):88–90.
26.
LazegaEmmanuelJourdaMarie-Theäreä?se. 2016. “The Structural Wings of Matthew Effects: The Contribution of Three-level Network Data to the Analysis of Cumulative Advantage.”Methodological Innovations9:1–13.
27.
LinNan2002. Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
28.
LiuKa-YuetKingMarissaBearmanPeter S.2010. “Social Influence and the Autism Epidemic.”American Journal of Sociology115(5):1387–434.
29.
ManskiCharles F. 1993. “Identification of Endogenous Social Effects: The Reflection Problem.”The Review of Economic Studies60(3):531–42.
30.
ManzoGianluca. 2013. “Educational Choices and Social Interactions: A Formal Model and a Computational Test.”Class and Stratification Analysis30:47–100.
31.
MarsdenPeter V.1987. “Core Discussion Networks of Americans.” American Sociological Review52(1):122–31.
32.
MarsdenPeter V.1988. “Homogeneity in Confiding Relations.” Social Networks10(1):57–76.
33.
MarsdenPeter V.GormanElizabeth H.. 2001. “Social Networks, Job Changes, and Recruitment.” Pp. 467–502 in Sourcebook of Labor Markets: Evolving Structure and Processes, edited by BergI.KallebergA. L.. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
34.
MasseyDouglas S.EspinosaKristin E.. 1997. “What’s driving Mexico-US migration? A Theoretical, Empirical, and Policy Analysis.” American Journal of Sociology102(4):939–99.
35.
McPhersonJ. MillerSmith-LovinLynn. 1987. “Homophily in Voluntary Organizations: Status Distance and the Composition of Face-to-face Groups.” American Sociological Review52(3):370–79.
36.
McPhersonJ. MillerSmith-LovinLynnCookJames M.. 2001. “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks.” Annual Review of Sociology27(1):415–44.
37.
MertonRobert K.1968. “The Matthew Effect in Science.” Science159(3810):56–63.
38.
MontgomeryJ. D.1991. Social networks and persistent inequality in the labor market. Evanston: Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.
39.
PampelFred C.KruegerPatrick M.DenneyJustin T.. 2010. “Socioeconomic Disparities in Health Behaviors.” Annual Review of Sociology36:349–70.
40.
PortesAlejandro. 1998. “Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology24:1–24.
41.
ReskinBarbara F. 1977. “Scientific Productivity and the Reward Structure of Science.” American Sociological Review42(3):491–504.
42.
ReskinBarbara F.McBrierDebra B.KmecJulie A.. 1999. “The Determinants and Consequences of Workplace Sex and Race Composition.” Annual Review of Sociology25(1):335–61.
43.
RiveraMark T.SoderstromSara B.UzziBrian. 2010. “Dynamics of Dyads in Social Networks: Assortative, Relational, and Proximity Mechanisms.” Annual Review of Sociology36:91–115.
44.
RossmanGabrielChiuMing MingMolJoeri M.. 2008. “Modeling Diffusion of Multiple Innovations via Multilevel Diffusion Curves: Payola in Pop Music Radio.” Sociological Methodology38(1):201–30.
45.
SacerdoteBruce. 2001. “Peer Effects with Random Assignment: Results for Dartmouth Roommates.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics116(2):681–704.
46.
SacerdoteBruce. 2011. “Peer Effects in Education: How Might They Work, How Big Are They and How Much Do We Know thus Far?” Pp. 249–277 in Handbook of the Economics of Education, edited by E. Hanushek, S. Machin and L. Woessmann Elsevier, 3:249–77.
47.
SalganikMatthew J.DoddsPeter SheridanWattsDuncan J.. 2006. “Experimental Study of Inequality and Unpredictability in an Artificial Cultural Market.” Science311(5762):854–56.
48.
ShepherdHana R. 2016. “The structure of perception: how networks shape ideas of norms.” Sociological forum32(1):72–93.
49.
ShepardRoger N.1987. “Toward a Universal Law of Generalization for Psychological Science.” Science237(4820):1317–23.
50.
SkvoretzJohn. 1990. “Biased Net Theory: Approximations, Simulations, and Observations.” Social Networks12(3):217–38.
51.
SmallMario LuisHardingDavid J.LamontMichèle. 2010. “Reconsidering Culture and Poverty.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science629:6–27.
52.
SmithKirsten P.ChristakisNicholas A.. 2008. “Social Networks and Health.” Annual Review of Sociology34:405–29.
53.
SmithSandra Susan. 2005. “‘Don’t Put My Name on It’: Social Capital Activation and Job-finding Assistance among the Black Urban Poor.” American Journal of Sociology111(1):1–57.
54.
SmithSanneMcFarlandDaniel A.TubergenFrank VanMaasIneke. 2016. “Ethnic Composition and Friendship Segregation: Differential Effects for Adolescent Natives and Immigrants.” American Journal of Sociology121(4):1223–72.
55.
TenenbaumJ. B.GriffithsT. L.. 2002. “Generalization, Similarity, and Bayesian Inference.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences24(4):629–40.
56.
van de RijtArnoutKangSoong MoonRestivoMichaelPatilAkshay. 2014. “Field Experiments of Success-breeds-success Dynamics.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences111(19):6934–39.
57.
VanderWeeleTyler J.2011. “Sensitivity Analysis for Contagion Effects in Social Networks.” Sociological Methods & Research40(2):240–55.
58.
WattsDuncan J.DoddsPeter S.NewmanMark E.. 2002. “Identity and Search in Social Networks.” Science296(5571):1302–5.
59.
WimmerAndreasLewisKevin. 2010. “Beyond and below Racial Homophily: ERG Models of a Friendship Network Documented on Facebook.” American Journal of Sociology116(2):583–642.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
