The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Culture and Competition: Homophily and distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches
Abstract
Why do different kinds of people like different kinds of culture? Two answers to this question are formally analyzed and empirically tested: the homophily model and the distancing model. Computer simulation demonstrates that these models are alternative explanations for the finding that different cultural tastes and practices are concentrated within different sociodemographic segments of society. Conflicting implications of the two models are identified. Although both models predict that cultural forms compete for people (i.e., people are a scarce resource on which cultural forms depend), the distancing model differs from the homophily model in that the distancing model predicts a dual ecology: Not only do cultural forms compete for people, but people compete for cultural forms. According to the distancing model, the larger the segment of society in which a cultural form is liked, the smaller is the proportion of people in that segment of society who like that cultural form. The homophily model predicts that people do not compete for cultural forms. Instead, it predicts a local bandwagon effect: The larger the segment of society in which a cultural form is liked, the larger is the proportion of people in that segment of society who like that cultural form. An empirical test using 1993 General Social Survey data supports the prediction of both models that cultural forms compete for people. The analysis also reveals a local bandwagon effect, yielding further empirical support for the homophily model and disconfirming the distancing model's prediction of a dual ecology.
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.
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
Changing Highbrow Taste: From Snob to Omnivore
Peterson, R. A., & Kern, R. M. (1996) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2096460 · Cited by 2,418
Institutional conditions for diffusion
Strang, D., & Meyer, J. W. (1993) · Theory and Society · doi:10.1007/bf00993595 · Cited by 2,114
Cited by
Tastes, ties, and time: a new social network dataset using Facebook.com
Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/j.socnet.2008.07.002 · Cited by 1,024
How Cultural Tastes Shape Personal Networks
Lizardo, O. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100504 · Cited by 607
Models of Social Influence: Towards the Next Frontiers
Flache, A., Mäs, M., Feliciani, T., Chattoe-Brown, E., Deffuant, G., Huet, S., & Lorenz, J. (2017) · Journal of Artificial Societies and Social Simulation · doi:10.18564/jasss.3521 · Cited by 601
A tutorial on modeling and analysis of dynamic social networks. Part I
Proskurnikov, A. V., & Tempo, R. (2017) · Annual Reviews in Control · doi:10.1016/j.arcontrol.2017.03.002 · Cited by 553
Cultural Holes: Beyond Relationality in Social Networks and Culture
Pachucki, M. A., & Breiger, R. L. (2010) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102615 · Cited by 531
Metadata
- Authors
- Mark, N. P.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-06
- Volume
- 68
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 319-345
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2312405249
- Cited by
- 290
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 14.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Culture and Competition: Homophily and distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/000312240306800302
- The paper
- Mark, N. P. (2003). Culture and Competition: Homophily and distancing Explanations for Cultural Niches. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240306800302
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.