Cited by 15Social Capital and NetworksIntergenerational and Educational Inequality StudiesSocial Power and Status Dynamics

Pautas de homofilia en Chile

Open access
Bargsted Valdés, Matías Andrés, Espinoza, Vicente, Plaza, Alejandro·2020·Papers. Revista de Sociologia

Abstract

El presente artículo caracteriza los niveles de homofilia en Chile, es decir, la tendencia a que las relaciones sociales vinculen a personas socialmente similares. El estudio de esta propensión social permite comprender las bases de la cohesión y el conflicto en la sociedad actual. De una parte, la homofilia puede promover la integración social de personas en grupos sociales, pero, de la otra, puede favorecer relaciones cerradas y, con ello, la reproducción de una estructura social rígida y fragmentada. El análisis se basa en modelos log lineales aplicados a datos de redes personales (egocentradas) generados por medio de una encuesta nacional. Con un control por disponibilidad demográfica, los resultados muestran que las relaciones entre los chilenos están fuertemente estructuradas por la edad, la religión y, en un grado algo menor, por la posición política y el nivel educacional. También encontramos marcados niveles de variación intergrupal dentro de cada una de estas categorías sociales. En el caso de la posición política y la religión, la frecuencia de las relaciones sociales intragrupales es mucho menor entre los grupos mayoritarios que entre los grupos minoritarios. En suma, nuestras estimaciones apuntan a que en la sociedad chilena la clausura del grupo es una característica dominante, pero sujeta a variación según la categoría social considerada.

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 · 10.5565/rev/papers.2617

Cites

1 of 1 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?

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

Research works printed but not linked: 37

  1. Abascal, Maria y Baldassarri, Delia (2015). «Love Thy Neighbor? Ethnoracial Diversity and Trust Reexamined». American Journal of Sociology, 121 (3), 722-82. <https://doi.org/10.1086/683144> · DOI
  2. Blau, Peter M. (1974). «Presidential Address: Parameters of Social Structure». Amer- ican Sociological Review, 39 (5), 615-635. <https://doi.org/10.2307/2094309> -(1977). «A Macrosociological Theory of Social Structure». American Journal of Sociology, 83 (1), 26-54. <https://doi.org/10.1086/226505> · DOI
  3. Blau, Peter M.; Beeker, Carolyn y Fitzpatrick, Kevin M. (1984). «Intersecting Social Affiliations and Intermarriage». Social Forces, 62 (3), 585-606. <https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/62. · DOI
  4. 585> Blau, Peter M. y Schwartz, Joseph (1984). Cross-Cutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrosociological Theory of Intregroup Relations. Nueva York: Academic Press.
  5. Brechwald, Whitney A. y Prinstein, Mitchell J. (2011). «Beyond Homophily: A Decade of Advances in Understanding Peer Influence Processes». Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21 (1), 166-79. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00721. · DOI
  6. Burt, Ronald S. (1984). «Network Items and the General Social Survey». Social Networks, 6 (4), 293-339. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(84)90007-8> · DOI
  7. DiMaggio, Paul y Garip, Filiz (2011). «How Network Externalities Can Exacerbate Intergroup Inequality». American Journal of Sociology, 116 (6), 1.887-1.933. <https://doi.org/10.1086/659653> · DOI
  8. Ferrand, Alexis; Mounier, Lise y Degenne, Alain (1999). «The Diversity of Personal Networks in France: Social Stratification and Relational Structures». En: Well- man, Barry (eds.). Networks in the Global Village. Life in Contemporary Commu- nities. Nueva York: Routledge.
  9. Fischer, Claude S. (2009). «The 2004 GSS Finding of Shrunken Social Networks: An Artifact?». American Sociological Review, 74 (4), 657-69. <https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400408> · DOI
  10. Forsé, Michel y Chauvel, Louis (1995). «L'évolution de l'homogamie en France. Une méthode pour comparer les diagonalités de plusieurs tables». Revue Française de Sociologie, 36 (1), 123-42. <https://doi.org/10.2307/3322313> · DOI
  11. Granovetter, Mark S. (1973). «The Strength of Weak Ties». American Journal of Sociology, 78 (6), 1.360-80. <https://doi.org/10.1086/225469> · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gullickson, Aaron y Torche, Florencia (2014). «Patterns of Racial and Educational Assortative Mating in Brazil». Demography, 51 (3), 835-856. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-014-0300-2> · DOI
  13. Hampton, Keith N. (2016). «Persistent and Pervasive Community: New Communi- cation Technologies and the Future of Community». American Behavioral Scientist, 60 (1), 101-24. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764215601714> · DOI
  14. Hampton, Keith N.; Sessions, Lauren F. y Ja Her, Eun (2011). «Core Networks, Social Isolation, and New Media: How Internet and Mobile Phone Use Is Related to Network Size and Diversity». Information, Communication & Society, 14 (1), 130-55. <https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2010.513417> · DOI
  15. Hoffman, Kelly y Centeno, Miguel (2003). «The Lopsided Continent: Inequality in Latin America». Annual Review of Sociology, 29 (1), 363-390. <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.100141> · DOI
  16. Kalmijn, Matthijs (1998). «Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends». Annual Review of Sociology, 24 (1), 395-421. <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.24.1.395> Laumann, Edward O. y Senter, Richard (1976). «Subjective Social Distance, Occupa- tional Stratification, and Forms of Status and Class Consciousness: A Cross-National Replication and Extension». American Journal of Sociology, 81 (6), 1.304-1.338. <https://doi.org/10.1086/226225> · DOI
  17. Lazarsfeld, Paul F. y Merton, Robert K. (1954). «Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis». En: Berger, Morroe; Abel, Theodore y Page, Charles H. (eds.). Freedom and Control in Modern Society. Nueva York: Van Nostrand.
  18. Louch, Hugh (2000). «Personal Network Integration: Transitivity and Homophily in Strong-Tie Relations». Social Networks, 22, 45-64. <https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-8733(00)00015-0> · DOI
  19. Lozares, Carlos y Verd, Joan Miquel (2011). «De la homofilia a la cohesión social y viceversa». Redes. Revista Hispana para el Análisis de Redes Sociales, 20 (1), 29-50. <https://doi.org/10.5565/rev/redes.408> · DOI
  20. Lozares, Carlos; Verd, Joan Miquel; Cruz, Irene y Barranco, Oriol (2014). «Homophily and Heterophily in Personal Networks. From Mutual Acquaintance to Relationship Intensity». Quality & Quantity, 48 (5), 2.657-70. <https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-013-9915-4> · DOI
  21. Lumley, Thomas (2017). Survey: Analysis of Complex Survey Samples. R Package Ver- sion 3.32. Luna, Juan Pablo y Altman, David (2011). «Uprooted but Stable: Chilean Parties and the Concept of Party System Institutionalization». Latin American Politics and Society, 53 (2), 1-28. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1548-2456.2011.00115. · DOI
  22. Marin, Alexandra (2004). «Are Respondents More Likely to List Alters with Certain Characteristics?». Social Networks, 26 (4), 289-307. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2004.06.001> Marsden, Peter V. (1987). «Core Discussion Networks of Americans». American Sociological Review, 52 (1), 122-131. <https://doi.org/10.2307/2095397> -(1988). «Homogeneity in Confiding Relations». Social Networks, 10 (1), 57-76. <https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-8733(88)90010-X> -(1990). «Network Data and Measurement». Annual Review of Sociology, 16, 435-63. <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.so.16.080190.002251> · DOI
  23. McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn y Cook, James M. (2001). «Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks». Annual Review of Sociology, 27 (1), 415-444. <https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.415> McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn y Brashears, Matthew E. (2006). «Social Isolation in America: Changes in Core Discussion Networks over Two Decades». American Sociological Review, 71 (3), 353-375. <https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240607100301> · DOI · Paper page
  24. McPherson, Miller; Smith-Lovin, Lynn y Brashears, Matthew E. (2009). «Mod- els and Marginals: Using Survey Evidence to Study Social Networks». American Sociological Review, 74 (4), 670-681. <https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400409> · DOI
  25. Miguel Luken, Verónica de y Tranmer, Mark (2010). «Personal Support Networks of Immigrants to Spain: A Multilevel Analysis». Social Networks, 32 (4), 253-262. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2010.03.002> Mollenhorst, Gerald; Beate, Volker y Henk, Flap (2008). «Social Contexts and Core Discussion Networks: Using a Choice-Constraint Approach to Study Simi- larity in Intimate Relationships». Social Forces, 86 (3), 937-65. <https://doi.org/10.1353/sof. · DOI
  26. 0010> Powers, Daniel y Xie, Yu (2008). Statistical Methods for Categorical Data Analysis. Emerald Group Publishing.
  27. Ramos-Vidal, Ignacio (2016). «Popularidad y relaciones entre iguales en el aula: un estudio prospectivo». Psicología Educativa, 22 (2), 113-24. <https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pse.2015. · DOI
  28. 001> Ramos-Vidal, Ignacio; Castro, Belkis y Palacio, Jorge (2016). «Patrones de interac- ción y grupos de discusión política en las redes personales de jóvenes colombianos». América Latina Hoy, 73 (0), 121. <https://doi.org/10.14201/alh201673121139> · DOI
  29. Ramos-Vidal, Ignacio; Villamil, Ilse y Uribe, Alicia (2019). «Underlying Dimen- sions of Social Cohesion in a Rural Community Affected by Wartime Violence in Colombia». International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16 (2), 195. <https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16020195> · DOI
  30. Rodríguez, Santiago A. (2016). «Selección de parejas y estratificación social: hacia una agenda de investigación». Estudios Sociológicos, 34 (100), 169-190. <https://doi.org/10.24201/ES.2016V34N100.1400> · DOI
  31. Silva, Patricio (2004). «Doing Politics in a Depoliticised Society: Social Change and Political Deactivation in Chile». Bulletin of Latin American Research, 23 (1), 63-78. <https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1470-9856.2004.00096. · DOI
  32. Smith, Jeffrey A.; McPherson, Miller y Smith-Lovin, Lynn (2014). «Social Distance in the United States: Sex, Race, Religion, Age, and Education Homophily among Confidants, 1985 to 2004». American Sociological Review, 79 (3), 432-456. <https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414531776> · DOI
  33. Solís, Patricio (2010). «Entre un buen partido y un peor es nada: selección de parejas en la Ciudad de México». Revista Latinoamericana de Población, 4 (7), 57-78.
  34. Torche, Florencia (2010). «Educational Assortative Mating and Economic Inequal- ity: A Comparative Analysis of Three Latin American Countries». Demography, 47 (2), 481-502. <https://doi.org/10.1353/dem. · DOI
  35. Valenzuela, Eduardo y Ayala, Cristián (2011). «Homofilia, selección e influencia en un estudio longitudinal de drogas en población escolar». Psykhe, 20 (2), 101-14. <https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-22282011000200009> · DOI
  36. Valenzuela, Juan Pablo; Bellei, Cristian y Ríos, Danae de los (2014). «Socioeco- nomic School Segregation in a Market-Oriented Educational System. The Case of Chile». Journal of Education Policy, 29 (2), 217-241. <https://doi.org/10.1080/02680939.2013.806995> · DOI
  37. Wright, Erik Olin y Cho, Donmoon (1992). «The Relative Permeability of Class Boundaries to Cross-Class Friendships: A Comparative Study of the United States, Canada, Sweden, and Norway». American Sociological Review, 57 (1), 85-102. <https://doi.org/10.2307/2096146> Endogamia constante (EC) 1.039,9324 24 849,4183 0,2165 2.802 227,239 24 38,2179 0,1021 2.633 Endogamia diferenciada (ED) 662,6428 19 511,8192 0,1385 2.802 154,791 19 5,1493 0,0769 2.633 Cuasisimetría 25,293 10 -54,0879 0,0201 2.802 28,1439 10 -50,6149 0,0358 2.633 Asociación uniforme con EC 276,8441 23 94,268 0,1152 2.802 179,9076 23 -1,2376 0,1019 2.633 Asociación uniforme con ED 127,3454 18 -15,5402 0,0523 2.802 135,3566 18 -6,4093 0,073 2.633 Cruce de parámetros 57,8777 16 -69,1318 0,0297 2.802 145,973 16 19,9589 0,0755 2.633 Educación Independencia 1.038,7309 9 968,559 0,2768 2.433 496,1887 9 425,5518 0,1726 2.562 Endogamia constante (EC) 262,1589 8 199,7838 0,1039 2.433 195,6969 8 132,9085 0,1028 2.562 Endogamia diferenciada (ED) 217,881 5 178,8966 0,0809 2.433 115,0139 5 75,7712 0,0623 2.562 Cuasisimetría 6,0254 3 -17,3653 0,0063 2.433 4,9771 3 -18,5686 0,0116 2.562 Asociación uniforme con EC 30,3891 7 -24,1891 0,0369 2.433 15,9999 7 -38,9399 0,021 2.562 Asociación uniforme con ED 9,4219 4 -21,7656 0,0088 2.433 8,4672 4 -22,927 0,0121 2.562 Cruce de parámetros 6,168 4 -25,0196 0,0062 2.433 4,9944 4 -26,3998 0,0117 2.562 Religión Independencia 708,5182 9 638,0015 0,2007 2.528 1.267,2637 9 1196,5116 0,2563 2.595 Endogamia constante (EC) 69,255 8 6,5736 0,0546 2.528 112,0401 8 49,1493 0,0583 2.595 Endogamia diferenciada (ED) 2,9956 5 -36,1803 0,0047 2.528 6,5772 5 -32,7295 0,0047 2.595 Cuasisimetría 1,8511 3 -21,6545 0,0047 2.528 4,4039 3 -19,1801 0,0047 2.595 Cruce de parámetros 2,9428 4 -28,3979 0,0046 2.528 5,9831 4 -25,4623 0,0044 2.595 Posición política Independencia 649,2962 9 577,2 0,1685 3.013 720,3456 9 649,2265 0,1835 2.703 Endogamia constante (EC) 156,9023 8 92,8167 0,0726 3.013 161,2401 8 98,0231 0,0776 2.703 Endogamia diferenciada (ED) 74,1512 5 34,0978 0,0401 3.013 20,7538 5 -18,7567 0,0203 2.703 Cuasisimetría 5,5347 3 -18,4974 0,0091 3.013 5,2565 3 -18,4498 0,0103 2.703 Cruce de parámetros 7,2525 4 -24,7903 0,0133 3.013 13,0678 4 -18,5407 0,0143 2.703 Fuente: elaboración según ENACOES 2014. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bargsted Valdés, M. A., Espinoza, V., & Plaza, A.
Affiliations
  • Universidad de Santiago de Chile (CL)
  • Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile (CL)
Venue
Papers. Revista de Sociologia
Published
2020-10-01
Volume
105
Issue
4
Pages
583-612
ISSN
  • 0210-2862 (ISSN-L)
  • 2013-9004
OpenAlex
W3090725305
Cited by
15
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1
FWCI
3.35
Type
journal article
Language
es
Open access
Locations
  • Papers Revista de Sociologia (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • Dipòsit Digital de Documents de la UAB (Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • LA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Capital and Networks
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Intergenerational and Educational Inequality Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social Power and Status Dynamics
Keywords
homophily, social networks, Chile, age, political positions, educational attainment, social cohesion, social fragmentation, minority groups, personal networks

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