Abstract
AbstractHow do people form personal ties? A consensus holds in sociological and social network scholarship that in-person networks are dominated by status homophily and thatguanxinetworks rely extensively on balance. This article argues that social networking sites (SNSs) reconceptualize the character of homophily and tie-formation altogether inguanxinetworks. Drawing on 50 semi-structured interviews with Hong Kong youth from 2017 to 2020, this article examines how the technical capabilities of SNSs and principles ofguanxiculture come together to erode status boundaries, create access to larger networks, and cause spillovers of information and tie strength. As a result, the basis of tie-formation inguanxinetworks on SNSs shifts from balance to assortation and status homophily to value homophily. In this transformed calculus of tie-formation, two typologies of values rise to the fore: substantive values that reflect opinions and interests, as well as structural values that reflect networkability.
Funder
Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference104 articles.
1. Aral, S., and M. Van Alstyne. 2011. The diversity-bandwidth trade-off. American Journal of Sociology 117 (1): 90–171.
2. Armstrong, E.A., L.T. Hamilton, E.M. Armstrong, and J.L. Seeley. 2014. “Good Girls” gender, social class, and slut discourse on campus. Social Psychology Quarterly 77 (2): 100–122.
3. Attride-Stirling, J. 2001. Thematic networks: An analytic tool for qualitative research. Qualitative Research 1 (3): 385–405.
4. Au, A., and M. Chew. 2017. How do you feel? Managing emotional reaction, conveyance, and detachment on Facebook and Instagram. Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 37 (3): 127–137.
5. Au, A. 2019. Thinking about cross-cultural differences in qualitative interviewing: Practices for more responsive and trusting encounters. The Qualitative Report 24 (1): 58–77.
Cited by
11 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献