CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 149Religion and Society InteractionsReligion, Spirituality, and PsychologyContemporary Christian Leadership and Education

The ‘friendship dynamics of religion,’ or the ‘religious dynamics of friendship’? A social network analysis of adolescents who attend small schools

Open access
Cheadle, Jacob E., Schwadel, Philip·2012·Social Science Research
DOI 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.014PMC PMC3461188
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Longitudinal social network data on adolescents in seven schools are analyzed to reach a new understanding about how the personal and interpersonal social dimensions of adolescent religion intertwine together in small school settings. We primarily address two issues relevant to the sociology of religion and sociology in general: (1) social selection as a source of religious homophily and (2) friend socialization of religion. Analysis results are consistent with Collins' interaction ritual chain theory, which stresses the social dimensions of religion, since network-religion autocorrelations are relatively substantial in magnitude and both selection and socialization mechanisms play key roles in generating them. Results suggest that socialization plays a stronger role than social selection in four of six religious outcomes, and that more religious youth are more cliquish. Implications for our understanding of the social context of religion, religious homophily, and the ways we model religious influence, as well as limitations and considerations for future research, are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.014

Cites

116 of 116 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • People might reflexively adhere to their groups' beliefs to strengthen relationships with other members of the group.

    “Thus, people might reflexively adhere to their groups' beliefs to strengthen relationships with other members of the group 77-79 .”

    From Predictors and consequences of intellectual humility (2022) · cites this paper as [78]

    The Introduction (§1.2; page unavailable) says friends may adapt their religious beliefs to gain social acceptance, and §1.3 describes shared symbols becoming internalized through interaction. This supports the proposed link between belief alignment and relationships, but the paper does not establish that adherence is reflexive or extend the finding beyond religious beliefs and adolescent friendships to group beliefs generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

6 of the 122 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Friedkin Noah E. A structural theory of social influence 1998 New York Cambridge University Press
  2. Wagner C. Peter Our Kind of People: The Ethical Dimensions of Church Growth 1979 Atlanta, GA John Knox Press
  3. Wuthnow Robert After Heaven: Spirituality in American Since the 1950s 1998 Berkeley, CA University of California Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cheadle, J. E., & Schwadel, P.
Affiliations
University of Nebraska–Lincoln (US)
Corresponding author
Cheadle, Jacob E.
ORCID
Venue
Social Science Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-09
Volume
41
Issue
5
Pages
1198-1212
ISSN
0049-089X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.03.014
PMC
PMC3461188
OpenAlex
W1998000151
Cited by
149
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 4
FWCI
26.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Social Science Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Lincoln (University of Nebraska) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
  • National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (R03AA019479)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (P01HD031921)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Religion and Society Interactions
  • Social Sciences › Health › Religion, Spirituality, and Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Religious studies › Contemporary Christian Leadership and Education
Keywords
friendship networks, small schools, social selection, interaction ritual chains, religious influence, religious socialization

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review