The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm
Abstract
Herminia Ibarra Harvard University This paper argues that two network mechanisms operate to create and reinforce gender inequalities in the organizational distribution of power: sex differences in homophily (i.e., tendency to form same-sex network relationships) and in the ability to convert individual attributes and positional resources into network advantages. These arguments were tested in a network analytic study of men's and women's interaction patterns in an advertising firm. Men were more likely to form homophilous ties across multiple networks and to have stronger homophilous ties, while women evidenced a differentiated network pattern in which they obtained social support and friendship from women and instrumental access through network ties to men. Although centrality in organization-wide networks did not vary by sex once controls were instituted, relative to women, men appeared to reap greater network returns from similar individual and positional resources, as well as from homophilous relationships.'
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
Centrality in social networks conceptual clarification
Freeman, L. C. (1978) · Social Networks · doi:10.1016/0378-8733(78)90021-7 · Cited by 17,062
Burkhardt, M. E., & Brass, D. J. (1990) · Administrative Science Quarterly · doi:10.2307/2393552 · Cited by 947
Cited by
Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks
McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415 · Cited by 18,567
Organizational Silence: A Barrier to Change and Development in a Pluralistic World
Morrison, E. W., & Milliken, F. J. (2000) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259200 · Cited by 2,776
Network-based research in entrepreneurship
Hoang, H., & Antoncic, B. (2003) · Journal of Business Venturing · doi:10.1016/s0883-9026(02)00081-2 · Cited by 2,302
Kalev, A., Dobbin, F., & Kelly, E. (2006) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.1177/000312240607100404 · Cited by 2,052
What Differences Make a Difference?: The Promise and Reality of Diverse Teams in Organizations
Mannix, E., & Neale, M. A. (2005) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1111/j.1529-1006.2005.00022.x · Cited by 1,276
Metadata
- Authors
- Ibarra, H.
- Venue
- Administrative Science Quarterly
- Publisher
- JSTOR
- Published
- 1992-09
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 422
- ISSN
- 0001-8392 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1997052091
- Cited by
- 2,121
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 25.69
- 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: Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/2393451
- The paper
- Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and Differential Returns: Sex Differences in Network Structure and Access in an Advertising Firm. Administrative Science Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.2307/2393451
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.