Rediet Abebe
Jon Kleinberg
ABSTRACT
The tendency for individuals to form social ties with others who are similar to themselves, known as homophily, is one of the most robust sociological principles. Since this phenomenon can lead to patterns of interactions that segregate people along different demographic dimensions, it can also lead to inequalities in access to information, resources, and opportunities. As we consider potential interventions that might alleviate the effects of segregation, we face the challenge that homophily constitutes a pervasive and organic force that is difficult to push back against. Designing effective interventions can therefore benefit from identifying counterbalancing social processes that might be harnessed to work in opposition to segregation.
In this work, we show that triadic closure---another common phenomenon that posits that individuals with a mutual connection are more likely to be connected to one another---can be one such process. In doing so, we challenge a long-held belief that triadic closure and homophily work in tandem. By analyzing several fundamental network models using popular integration measures, we demonstrate the desegregating potential of triadic closure. We further empirically investigate this effect on real-world dynamic networks, surfacing observations that mirror our theoretical findings. We leverage these insights to discuss simple interventions that can help reduce segregation in settings that exhibit an interplay between triadic closure and homophily. We conclude with a discussion on qualitative implications for the design of interventions in settings where individuals arrive in an online fashion, and the designer can influence the initial set of connections.
- Rediet Abebe, Solon Barocas, Jon Kleinberg, Karen Levy, Manish Raghavan, and David G Robinson. 2020. Roles for computing in social change. In Proceedings of the 2020 Conference on Fairness, Accountability, and Transparency. 252--260.Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Rediet Abebe and Kira Goldner. 2018. Mechanism design for social good. AI Matters, Vol. 4, 3 (2018), 27--34.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lada A Adamic and Natalie Glance. 2005. The political blogosphere and the 2004 US election: divided they blog. In Proceedings of the 3rd international workshop on Link discovery. 36--43.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristen M Altenburger and Johan Ugander. 2018. Monophily in social networks introduces similarity among friends-of-friends. Nature human behaviour, Vol. 2, 4 (2018), 284.Google Scholar
- Aili Asikainen, Gerardo Iniguez, Javier Urena-Carrión, Kimmo Kaski, and Mikko Kivel"a. 2020. Cumulative effects of triadic closure and homophily in social networks. Science Advances, Vol. 6, 19 (2020), eaax7310.Google Scholar
- Chen Avin, Barbara Keller, Zvi Lotker, Claire Mathieu, David Peleg, and Yvonne-Anne Pignolet. 2015. Homophily and the glass ceiling effect in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2015 conference on innovations in theoretical computer science. 41--50.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Abhijit Banerjee, Arun G Chandrasekhar, Esther Duflo, and Matthew O Jackson. 2013. The diffusion of microfinance. Science, Vol. 341, 6144 (2013).Google Scholar
- Asia J Biega, Krishna P Gummadi, and Gerhard Weikum. 2018. Equity of Attention: Amortizing Individual Fairness in Rankings. arXiv preprint arXiv:1805.01788 (2018).Google Scholar
- Yann Bramoullé, Sergio Currarini, Matthew O Jackson, Paolo Pin, and Brian W Rogers. 2012. Homophily and long-run integration in social networks. Journal of Economic Theory, Vol. 147, 5 (2012).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antoni Calvo-Armengol and Matthew O Jackson. 2004. The effects of social networks on employment and inequality. American Economic Review, Vol. 94, 3 (2004).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Antoni Calvo-Armengol, Eleonora Patacchini, and Yves Zenou. 2009. Peer effects and social networks in education. The Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 76, 4 (2009).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Fan Chung and Mary Radcliffe. 2011. On the spectra of general random graphs. the electronic journal of combinatorics (2011), P215--P215.Google Scholar
- Sergio Currarini, Matthew O Jackson, and Paolo Pin. 2009. An economic model of friendship: Homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica, Vol. 77, 4 (2009), 1003--1045.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Krishna Dasaratha. 2017. Distributions of Centrality on Networks. arXiv preprint arXiv:1709.10402 (2017).Google Scholar
- Michela Del Vicario, Gianna Vivaldo, Alessandro Bessi, Fabiana Zollo, Antonio Scala, Guido Caldarelli, and Walter Quattrociocchi. 2016. Echo chambers: Emotional contagion and group polarization on facebook. Scientific reports, Vol. 6, 1 (2016), 1--12.Google Scholar
- Paul DiMaggio and Filiz Garip. 2011. How network externalities can exacerbate intergroup inequality. Amer. J. Sociology, Vol. 116, 6 (2011), 1887--1933.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yuxiao Dong, Reid A Johnson, Jian Xu, and Nitesh V Chawla. 2017. Structural diversity and homophily: A study across more than one hundred big networks. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM SIGKDD International Conference on Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining. 807--816.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Nathan Eagle, Michael Macy, and Rob Claxton. 2010. Network diversity and economic development. Science, Vol. 328, 5981 (2010), 1029--1031.Google Scholar
- David Easley and Jon Kleinberg. 2010. Networks, Crowds, and Markets: Reasoning about a Highly Connected World. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511761942Google Scholar
- Michael D Ekstrand and Martijn C Willemsen. 2016. Behaviorism is not enough: better recommendations through listening to users. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 221--224.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jacob K Goeree, Arno Riedl, and Aljavz Ule. 2009. In search of stars: Network formation among heterogeneous agents. Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 67, 2 (2009).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark S Granovetter. 1977. The strength of weak ties. In Social networks. Elsevier, 347--367.Google Scholar
- Ido Guy. 2015. Social recommender systems. In Recommender Systems Handbook. Springer, 511--543.Google Scholar
- Anikó Hannák, Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Alan Mislove, Markus Strohmaier, and Christo Wilson. 2017. Bias in online freelance marketplaces: Evidence from taskrabbit and fiverr. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing. 1914--1933.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Adam Douglas Henry, Paweł Prałat, and Cun-Quan Zhang. 2011. Emergence of segregation in evolving social networks. Proc. of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 108, 21 (2011).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jevan Hutson, Jessie G Taft, Solon Barocas, and Karen Levy. 2018. Debiasing Desire: Addressing Bias & Discrimination on Intimate Platforms. arXiv preprint arXiv:1809.01563 (2018).Google Scholar
- Matthew O. Jackson, Tomas Rodriguez-Barraquer, and Xu Tan. 2012. Social Capital and Social Quilts: Network Patterns of Favor Exchange. American Economic Review, Vol. 102, 5 (May 2012). https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.102.5.1857Google ScholarCross Ref
- Matthew O. Jackson and Brian W. Rogers. 2007. Meeting Strangers and Friends of Friends: How Random Are Social Networks? American Economic Review, Vol. 97, 3 (June 2007), 890--915. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.97.3.890Google Scholar
- Kibae Kim and Jörn Altmann. 2017. Effect of homophily on network formation. Comm. in Nonlinear Science and Numerical Simulation, Vol. 44 (2017).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Bart P Knijnenburg, Saadhika Sivakumar, and Daricia Wilkinson. 2016. Recommender systems for self-actualization. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Recommender Systems. ACM, 11--14.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gueorgi Kossinets and Duncan J Watts. 2006. Empirical analysis of an evolving social network. science, Vol. 311, 5757 (2006), 88--90.Google Scholar
- Gueorgi Kossinets and Duncan J Watts. 2009. Origins of homophily in an evolving social network. American journal of sociology, Vol. 115, 2 (2009), 405--450.Google Scholar
- Paul F Lazarsfeld, Robert K Merton, et al. 1954. Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. Freedom and control in modern society, Vol. 18, 1 (1954), 18--66.Google Scholar
- Adalbert Mayer and Steven L Puller. 2008. The old boy (and girl) network: Social network formation on university campuses. Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 92, 1--2 (2008).Google ScholarCross Ref
- J Miller McPherson and Lynn Smith-Lovin. 1987. Homophily in voluntary organizations: Status distance and the composition of face-to-face groups. American sociological review (1987), 370--379.Google Scholar
- Miller McPherson, Lynn Smith-Lovin, and James M Cook. 2001. Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual review of sociology, Vol. 27, 1 (2001).Google Scholar
- Mark EJ Newman. 2002. Assortative mixing in networks. Physical review letters, Vol. 89, 20 (2002), 208701.Google Scholar
- Shirin Nilizadeh, Anne Groggel, Peter Lista, Srijita Das, Yong-Yeol Ahn, Apu Kapadia, and Fabio Rojas. 2016. Twitter's glass ceiling: The effect of perceived gender on online visibility. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, Vol. 10. 289--298.Google Scholar
- Anatol Rapoport. 1953. Spread of information through a population with socio-structural bias: I. Assumption of transitivity. The bulletin of mathematical biophysics, Vol. 15, 4 (1953), 523--533.Google Scholar
- Tobias Schnabel, Paul N Bennett, Susan T Dumais, and Thorsten Joachims. 2018. Short-term satisfaction and long-term coverage: Understanding how users tolerate algorithmic exploration. In Proceedings of the Eleventh ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining. ACM, 513--521.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wesley Shrum, Neil H Cheek Jr, and Saundra MacD. 1988. Friendship in school: Gender and racial homophily. Sociology of Education (1988), 227--239.Google Scholar
- Ana-Andreea Stoica, Christopher Riederer, and Augustin Chaintreau. 2018. Algorithmic Glass Ceiling in Social Networks: The effects of social recommendations on network diversity. In Proceedings of the 2018 World Wide Web Conference. 923--932.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jessica Su, Aneesh Sharma, and Sharad Goel. 2016. The effect of recommendations on network structure. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web. 1157--1167.Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jie Tang, Jing Zhang, Limin Yao, Juanzi Li, Li Zhang, and Zhong Su. 2008. ArnetMiner: Extraction and Mining of Academic Social Networks. In KDD'08. 990--998.Google ScholarDigital Library
- GergHo Tóth, Johannes Wachs, Riccardo Di Clemente, Ákos Jakobi, Bence Ságvári, János Kertész, and Balázs Lengyel. 2019. Inequality is rising where social network segregation interacts with urban topology. arXiv preprint arXiv:1909.11414 (2019).Google Scholar
- Dan Zeltzer. 2020. Gender homophily in referral networks: Consequences for the medicare physician earnings gap. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, Vol. 12, 2 (2020), 169--97.Google ScholarCross Ref
Index Terms
- On the Effect of Triadic Closure on Network Segregation
Recommendations
Will Triadic Closure Strengthen Ties in Social Networks?
The social triad—a group of three people—is one of the simplest and most fundamental social groups. Extensive network and social theories have been developed to understand its structure, such as triadic closure and social balance. Over the course of a ...
Triadic Closure Pattern Analysis and Prediction in Social Networks
We study the problem of group formation in online social networks. In particular, we focus on one of the most important human groups-the triad-and try to understand how closed triads are formed in dynamic networks, by employing data from a large ...
Learning to predict reciprocity and triadic closure in social networks
We study how links are formed in social networks. In particular, we focus on investigating how a reciprocal (two-way) link, the basic relationship in social networks, is developed from a parasocial (one-way) relationship and how the relationships ...
Comments