Cited by 90Complex Network Analysis TechniquesOpinion Dynamics and Social InfluenceComplex Systems and Time Series Analysis

Homophily and the Glass Ceiling Effect in Social Networks

Avin, Chen, Keller, Barbara, Lotker, Zvi, Mathieu, Claire, Peleg, David, Pignolet, Yvonne-Anne·2015·Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science

Abstract

The glass ceiling effect has been defined in a recent US Federal Commission report as "the unseen, yet unbreakable barrier that keeps minorities and women from rising to the upper rungs of the corporate ladder, regardless of their qualifications or achievements". It is well documented that many societies and organizations exhibit a glass ceiling. In this paper we formally define and study the glass ceiling effect in social networks and propose a natural mathematical model, called the biased preferential attachment model, that partially explains the causes of the glass ceiling effect. This model consists of a network composed of two types of vertices, representing two sub-populations, and accommodates three well known social phenomena: (i) the "rich get richer" mechanism, (ii) a minority-majority partition, and (iii) homophily. We prove that our model exhibits a strong moment glass ceiling effect and that all three conditions are necessary, i.e., removing any one of them will prevent the appearance of a glass ceiling effect. Additionally, we present empirical evidence taken from a mentor-student network of researchers (derived from the DBLP database) that exhibits both a glass ceiling effect and the above three phenomena.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/2688073.2688097

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 50 · Cited by 90

Authors
Avin, C., Keller, B., Lotker, Z., Mathieu, C., Peleg, D., & Pignolet, Y.-A.
Affiliations
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
  • ETH Zurich (CH)
  • École Normale Supérieure - PSL (FR)
  • Weizmann Institute of Science (IL)
  • ABB (Switzerland) (CH)
Venue
Proceedings of the 2015 Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science
Publisher
ACM
Published
2015-01-11
Pages
41-50
OpenAlex
W2164925197
Cited by
90
References
50
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1
FWCI
6.55
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Conference on Innovations in Theoretical Computer Science (publishedVersion)
Funders
Israel Science Foundation (1549/13)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Complex Network Analysis Techniques
  • Physical Sciences › Physics and Astronomy › Statistical and Nonlinear Physics › Opinion Dynamics and Social Influence
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Complex Systems and Time Series Analysis
Keywords
glass ceiling, homophily, social networks, rich get richer, network growth models, DBLP

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