Homogamy

Social Distance as Social Integration

Lecture Map

• Homophily• Qian’s Structural Model of Homogamy– Racial Homogamy

• Blau’s Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations– Multivariate Homogamy

Homophily

• Homophily is the observed tendency for people who are socially connected to have similar characteristics

• Data from the GSS shows that confidants (including but not limited to spouses) are more likely to share the same education level, racial category, religion and age

• They are equally likely to be of the same gender (because the sample includes spouses)

The probability that two confidants had the same education in 2004

Marriage

The probability that two confidants were the same race in 2004

Marriage

The probability that two confidants had the same religion in 2004

Marriage

The probability that two confidants had the same gender in 2004

Marriage

Age similarity in discussion networks

Marriage

Social Distance

• The average similarity (in terms of race, gender, age and religion) of the members of a social networks can tell a researcher how socially close those groups are– If Catholics and Protestants are never in the same

networks, they are socially far apart • Homogamy is a special case of homophily that

refers to marriage– Marriage between similar people is more likely than

between different people

Why Study Homogamy?

• At the individual level cross-group marriage is a litmus test for social acceptance across groups

• At the macro-level it has important implications for society’s “openness”– A rigid or closed society would be one in which

only in-group marriages took place

A Closed Society where Social Relations are Determined by a Nominal Characteristic

A Closed Society where Social Relations are Determined by a Ranked Characteristic

An Open Society: Knowing A Person’s Nominal Characteristics and Ranked Characteristics Tell you Nothing about Social Relations

How can we explain it?

1. Structural models 2. Individual preference models

Today we’re focusing on structural models, Tuesday we’ll approach the problem from the other side

Peter Blau

• Born to Jewish parents in Austria in 1918• Captured, tortured and released by Nazis in 1938• Obtained a study permit and headed to USA via

France• Studied at Elmhurst College, Illinois • Joined the army and acted as a German

interrogator• Obtained American citizenship• Revolutionized Sociology (3 times)

-'You can not marry an Eskimo when no Eskimo is around'

Qian’s Structuralism (Derived from Peter Blau’s original 1977 Macrostructural Theory)

1. Subject matter Macro theory

Cross-group marriages are more likely where:a. The pool of potential in-group mates is smallb. Individuals in the group have similar education to those in other groupsc. There is little geographic segregation

2. Assumptions about social actionHuman behavior is predictable

People have the ability to act but it is highly constrained

3. Methodology Deductive theory of social systems

4. Theoretical ObjectivePrediction of behavior based on attributes of a system

Macrostructural Theory Compared with Structural Functionalism

Macrostructural Theory Structural FunctionalismStructure refers to the “shape” of society based on demographic facts

Structure refers to systems and subsystems

Society is held together by social interactions

Systems are integrated through mutually dependent functions

Social action is heavily constrained by demographic realities

Social action is constrained by value orientations

Structural Models: Proximity

• Can’t marry someone you don’t meet– Meeting is based on:

1. The number of groups and how big they are relative to others

2. Education at the Individual level3. Geographic proximity

Group Size

Assumptions: A model of marriage based on demographic composition of the marriage market

-individual preferences do matter, but we can make reasonable inference without

them

High levels of Immigration

• Adds to the pool of potential in-group mates– Usually of lower education in the first generation

• Reinforce cultural differences (language, religion)

Education

• Education brings people of different backgrounds into contact

• Education is also a status marker – High education signifies potential success

Geographic Segregation/Isolation

• College educated black Americans are underrepresented in white middle and upper class neighbourhoods – Legacies of legal and social discrimination

reinforce group boundaries• Geographic segregation of Asian and Hispanic

immigrants is based on economic factors• Upwardly mobile immigrants tend to move into white

neighbourhoods which increases contact between groups

Raw Assortative Marriage Results

White-Hispanic and white-Asian marriages decreased over the period-Immigration allowed Hispanics and Asians to find spouses from within their group

Intermarriage between whites and Hispanics and whites and Asians were highest in the most educated categories

Changes in census definitions allowed the researchers to infer weakened boundaries between whites and Hispanics and whites and Asians

-mixed race children were more likely to identify as white, indicating that the racial boundary had shifted

White-black marriages started with a lower baseline but increased over the periodIncreases happened across education levels

Log-Linear Model Results(Marginal Free Assortative Marriage)

• Log-linear models control for changing population distributions– Should reduce the effect of immigration.

– Log linear models suggest that there has been an increase in marriages between whites and Asians and whites and Hispanics • While the raw percentages of intermarriages has

declined, if there had been no immigration the raw percentage would have increased

The Qian readings are the simplest case of social distance

• One main interest (racial homogamy) the other variables were control variables – they weren’t interested in the substantive relationships between the control variables

Multivariate Homogamy: Structural Theory of Intergroup Contact

1. Subject matter Macro theory

Three qualities of social organizationheterogeneityinequalitycorrelation between characteristics

2. Assumptions about social actionHuman behavior is predictable

People have the ability to act but it is highly constrained

3. Methodology Deductive theory of social systems

4. Theoretical ObjectivePrediction of behavior based on attributes of a system

-inequality, heterogeneity and intersection rather thanthe attributes of individuals

Blau’s Structural Theory of Intergroup Contact

• Intersecting Social Circles• Heterogeneity• Inequality • Correlation between characteristics

Simmel: Intersecting Social Circles

Consolidation/Concentric Social Circles

Intersection/Intersecting Social Circles

Nuclear Family

Kin

Lineage

Nuclear Family

Occupation

Alum Group

Intersecting Social Characteristics

High PoliticalPower

High Education

Protestant Religion

High Political Power

Protestant Religion

High Education

Low PoliticalPower

Catholic Religion

Low PoliticalPower

Low PoliticalPower

Catholic Religion

Heterogeneity increases out-group contact

• Heterogeneity is synonymous with diversity

• If there is no preference for in-group ties, then the proportion of in-group ties is just a function of the number of groups and the proportion of people in them.

Inequality increases out-group contact

• The extent to which status (income, education, occupational prestige) are concentrated

Intersecting Parameters

“Many intersecting parameters exert compelling constraints to become involved in intergroup relations, because they make a person’s in-group associates in one dimension frequently out-group members in other dimensions.”Blau et al. 1984:590

– If characteristics are less independent there will be less cross-group interaction

– If characteristics are more independent there will be more cross-group interaction

Measures of Intersection

Measured the intersection of:Education, occupation, race, national background,

industry, SEI and income• Cramer’s V – For two nominal variables

• Correlation ratio – For one nominal one numeric variable

• Person Correlation– For two numeric variables

Results

• Racial intermarriage is more likely where race is independent of education, income and occupation – It is driven by intersection not heterogeneity

• Intermarriage between people of different national origins is driven primarily by heterogeneity – not intersection

• Heterogeneity predicts regional intermarriage

The Case for Distance as Stratification

• Bottero and Prandy – Distance is hierarchally arranged

• Presumes that not only structural factors are at work

• Is this compelling?