The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Structural effect of size on interracial friendship
Abstract
Social contexts exert structural effects on individuals’ social relationships, including interracial friendships. In this study, we posit that, net of group composition, total context size has a distinct effect on interracial friendship. Under the assumptions of ( i ) maximization of preference in choosing a friend, ( ii ) multidimensionality of preference, and ( iii ) preference for same-race friends, we conducted analyses using microsimulation that yielded three main findings. First, increased context size decreases the likelihood of forming an interracial friendship. Second, the size effect increases with the number of preference dimensions. Third, the size effect is diluted by noise, i.e., the random component affecting friendship formation. Analysis of actual friendship data among 4,745 American high school students yielded results consistent with the main conclusion that increased context size promotes racial segregation and discourages interracial friendship.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
When Black children constitute a small share of a county's population, they are more likely to interact with white peers.
“When Black children constitute a small share of a county's population, they are more likely to interact with white peers”
From Changing Opportunity: Sociological Mechanisms Underlying Growing Class Gaps and Shrinking Race Gaps in Economic Mobility (2024) · cites this paper as Cheng and Xie, 2013
The paper’s opening discussion of group proportion says that a group’s larger relative share increases opportunities for others to befriend its members. This is consistent with more white friendships where white peers are more prevalent, but the paper does not establish the stated relationship for Black children’s share of a county population: its empirical analysis concerns friendships among students within schools, not county-level interaction. (LLM, conf=0.84)
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.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- G Allport The Nature of Prejudice (Addison Wesley, Reading, MA, 1954).
- P Blau, J Schwartz Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations (Academic, New York, 1984).
- 10.1086/228311 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/225294 · DOI
- 10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · DOI · Paper page
- C Fischer To Dwell Among Friends (University of Chicago, Chicago, 1982).
- K Yamaguchi, Homophily and social distance in the choice of multiple friends: An analysis based on conditionally symmetric log-bilinear association model. J Am Stat Assoc 85, 356–366 (1990).
- 10.1086/226505 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1086/653658 · DOI
- 10.2307/1519738 · DOI
- 10.1086/338954 · DOI
- 10.1073/pnas.0911793107 · DOI
- 10.1086/506415 · DOI
- 10.2307/2095356 · DOI
- Z Zeng, Y Xie, A preference-opportunity-choice framework with applications to intergroup friendship. AJS 114, 615–648 (2008).
- D McFadden, Conditional logit analysis of qualitative choice behavior. Frontiers in Econometrics, ed P Zarembka (Academic, New York), pp. 105–142 (1974).
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Chetty, R., Dobbie, W., Goldman, B., Porter, S., & Yang, C. (2024) · doi:10.3386/w32697 · Cited by 32
Metadata
- Authors
- Cheng, S., & Xie, Y.
- Affiliations
- Institute for Social Research, Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy, and Department of Sociology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48104; and
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2013-04-15
- Volume
- 110
- Issue
- 18
- Pages
- 7165-7169
- ISSN
- 0027-8424
- 1091-6490
- Cited by
- 22
- References
- 0
- Language
- en
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
