This paper uses a social network approach to examine gender clustering in a complete network of teenagers and their friends. It demonstrates the advantages of using increasingly sophisticated social network techniques, including clustering coefficients and their visualization, and social selection models within the ERGM framework, to visualize and explain the process of clustering which takes place in teenagers' networks. The paper supports previous findings of gender homophily among teenagers in small cliques of friends, provides evidence of clustering among larger groups of friends that differs by gender and evidence that the process of clustering also differs by gender. Males make more friends and form larger clusters than females. Differences in clustering are due to differences in selection (males make more friends), triadic closure (more likely for females) and endogenous effects (impacting more on males). These findings have sociological implications for single-gender and cross-gender influences on teenagers' behaviour, and for the presumed importance of agency (selection) over structure (endogenous effects) on friendship formation.
AkersR. L.KrohnM. D.Lanza-KaduceL.RadosevichM. (1979) ‘Social learning behavior: A specific test of a general theory’, American Sociological Review, 44: 635–655.
2.
BatageljV.MrvarA. (2003) PAJEK – Program for large network analysis (See www.insna.org software).
3.
BearmanP. E.MoodyJ.StovelK. (2004) ‘Chains of affection: The structure of adolescent romantic and sexual networks’, American Journal of Sociology, 110, 1, 44–91.
4.
BerensonJ. F.ApostolerisN. H.ParnassJ. (1997) ‘Age and sex differences in dyadic and group interaction’, Developmental Psychology, 33, 3, 538–543.
5.
BorgattiS. P.EverettM. G.FreemanL. C. (2006). UCINET 6 Social network analysis software (see www.insna.org software).
6.
BrookJ. S.WhitemanM.GordonA. S. (1983) ‘Stages of drug-use in adolescence – Personality, peer and family correlates’, Developmental Psychology, 19: 2: 269–277.
7.
CampbellK. E.LeeB. A. (1991) ‘Name generators in surveys of personal networks’, Social Networks, 13: 203–221.
8.
CollinsR. (1988) Theoretical Sociology, San Diego: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.
9.
DemboR.SchmeidlerJ.BurgosW. (1982) ‘Processes of early drug involvement in three inner-city neighborhood settings’, Deviant Behavior, 3: 4: 359–383
10.
EderD.HallinanM. T. (1978) ‘Sex differences in children's friendships’, American Sociological Review, 43, 2, 237–250.
11.
EnnettS. T.BaumanK. E. (1994) ‘The contribution of influence and selection to adolescent peer group homogeneity: The case of adolescent cigarette smoking’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67: 4: 653–663.
12.
EnnettS. T.BaumanK. E. (1996) ‘Adolescent social networks: School, demographic, and longitudinal considerations’, Journal of Adolescent Research, 11: 2: 194–215.
13.
FangX.LiX.StantonB.DongQ. (2003) ‘Social network positions and smoking experimentation among Chinese adolescents’, American Journal of Health Behavior, 27: 3: 257–267.
14.
FischerC. S.OlikerS. J. (1983) ‘A research note on friendship, gender, and the life cycle’, Social Forces, 62, 124–132.
15.
FreemanL. C. (2004) The development of social network analysis: A study in the sociology of science. Vancouver, Empirical Press.
16.
HararyF.NormanR. Z.CartwrightD. (1965) Structural models: An introduction to the theory of directed graphs. New York: Wiley.
17.
HomansG. C. (1950) The Human Group, New York: Harcourt.
18.
HunterS.MacD.VizelbergI. A.BerensonG. S. (1991) ‘Identifying mechanisms of adoption of tobacco and alcohol use among youth: The Bogalusa heart study’, Social Networks, 13: 91–104.
19.
KandelD. B. (1973) ‘Adolescent marihuana use: Role of parents and peers’, Science, 181: 1067–1070.
20.
KirkeD. M. (1990) Teenage Drug Abuse: An Individualistic and Structural Analysis, Ph.D. Thesis, University College Dublin.
21.
KirkeD. M. (1996). ‘Collecting peer data and delineating peer networks in a complete network’, Social Networks, 18: 4: 333–346.
22.
KirkeD. M. (2004) ‘Chain reactions in adolescents’ cigarette, alcohol and drug use: Similarity through peer influence or the patterning of ties in peer networks?', Social Networks, 26: 1: 3–28.
23.
KirkeD. M. (2006a) Teenagers and substance use: Social networks and peer influence. Basingstoke and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
24.
KirkeD. M. (2006b) ‘Determinants of gender composition and structure of peer groups in a community’. Paper presented at the International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Vancouver, April.
25.
KirkeD. M.PattisonP.RobinsG. (2007) ‘Modelling the role of gender in structuring adolescent friendship networks’. Paper presented at the International Sunbelt Social Network Conference, Corfu, May.
26.
KnokeD.KuklinskiJ. H. (1982) ‘Network Analysis’, Sage University Paper Series on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Beverly Hills and London, Sage Publications: Series No. 07–028.
27.
McPhersonJ. M.Smith-LovinL. (1987) ‘Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups’, American Sociological Review, 52: 370–379.
28.
McPhersonJ. M.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001) ‘Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 27: 415–444.
29.
PearsonM.MichellL. (2000) ‘Smoke rings: Social network analysis of friendship groups, smoking, and drug-taking’, Drugs: Education, Prevention and Policy, 7: 1: 21–37.
30.
PearsonM.WestP. (2003) ‘Drifting smoke rings: Social network analysis and Markov processes in a longitudinal study of friendship groups and risk-taking’, Connections, 25: 2: 59–76.
31.
PearsonM.SweetingH.WestP.YoungR.GordonJ.TurnerK. (2006) ‘Adolescent substance use in different social and peer contexts: A social network analysis’, Drugs-Education Prevention and Policy, 13, 6, 519–536.
32.
RichardsW. D. (1989) The NEGOPY network analysis program. School of Communication, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC, Canada.
33.
RobinsG.ElliottP.PattisonP. (2001) ‘Network models for social selection processes’, Social Networks, 23, 1–30.
34.
RobinsG.MorrisM. (2007) ‘Editorial: Advances in exponential random graph (p*) models’, Social Networks, 29, 169–172.
35.
ScottJ. (1991). Social Network Analysis: A Handbook, London: Sage Publications Ltd.
36.
SnijdersT. A. B.SteglichC. E. G.SchweinbergerM.HuismanM. E. (2005) Manual for SIENA version 2.1. Groningen, ICS.
37.
SprengerC. J. A.StokmanF. N. (Eds) (1989) Gradap: Graph Definition and Analysis Package, Groningen, ProGamma.
38.
WangP.RobinsG.PattisonP. (2006) Pnet: A program for the simulation and estimation of exponential random graph models. University of Melbourne.
39.
WassermanS.FaustK. (1994) Social Network Analysis: Methods and Applications. New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
WellmanB. (1988). ‘Structural analysis: From method and metaphor to theory and substance’, in WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (Eds), Social Structures: A Network Approach. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press, 19–61
41.
WellmanB.BerkowitzS. D. (Eds) (1988). Social Structures: A Network Approach, Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press.