Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations
Language: English
Authors: Weare, Christopher, Musso, Juliet, Jun, Kyu-Nahm
Source: Social Forces. Sep 2009 88(1):147-173.
Availability: University of North Carolina Press. 116 South Boundary Street, P.O. Box 2288, Chapel Hill, NC 27515-2288. Tel: 800-848-6224; Tel: 919-966-7449; Fax: 919-962-2704; e-mail: uncpress@unc.edu; Web site: http://uncpress.unc.edu/
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 27
Publication Date: 2009
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Political Attitudes, Organizations (Groups), Heterogeneous Grouping, Homogeneous Grouping, Social Networks, Neighborhoods, Governance, Access to Information, Interpersonal Communication, Urban Areas, Bias
Geographic Terms: California
ISSN: 0037-7732
Abstract: We examine the manner in which voluntary associations expose individuals to differing perspectives, or "cross-talk." Specifically we develop hypotheses based on the interactive roles of elite bias and homophily in structuring networks of democratic participation and test them on social network data of Los Angeles neighborhood councils. We find that homophily leads to boards less diverse than their communities, but does not lead to homogeneous cliques within boards. Moreover, we find that elite bias and homophily counteract each other in lower-status communities, leading to more diverse boards than would be predicted by homophily alone. We then examine the effects of assortative mixing on political attitudes and collective action, and find weak support for the proposition that associational diversity promotes tolerance and access to information. (Contains 8 tables and 14 notes.)
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 63
Entry Date: 2010
Access URL: https://socialforces.unc.edu/epub/folder.2007-02-09.8541500563/september09
Accession Number: EJ867753
Database: ERIC
Description
Abstract:We examine the manner in which voluntary associations expose individuals to differing perspectives, or "cross-talk." Specifically we develop hypotheses based on the interactive roles of elite bias and homophily in structuring networks of democratic participation and test them on social network data of Los Angeles neighborhood councils. We find that homophily leads to boards less diverse than their communities, but does not lead to homogeneous cliques within boards. Moreover, we find that elite bias and homophily counteract each other in lower-status communities, leading to more diverse boards than would be predicted by homophily alone. We then examine the effects of assortative mixing on political attitudes and collective action, and find weak support for the proposition that associational diversity promotes tolerance and access to information. (Contains 8 tables and 14 notes.)
ISSN:0037-7732