Do You Two Know Each Other? Transitivity, Homophily, and the Need for (Network) Closure

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Volumn 99, Issue 5, 2010, Pages 855-869

  Flynn, Francis J ^a   Reagans, Ray E ^b   Guillory, Lucia ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive networks; Homophily; Need for closure; Race

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FRIEND; HUMAN; HUMAN RELATION; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER GROUP; PERCEPTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RACE; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; SOCIAL SUPPORT;

ADULT; CONTINENTAL POPULATION GROUPS; FEMALE; FRIENDS; HUMANS; INTERPERSONAL RELATIONS; JUDGMENT; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PEER GROUP; QUESTIONNAIRES; SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION; SOCIAL PERCEPTION; SOCIAL SUPPORT; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 77958575755     PISSN: 00223514     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0020961     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Brass D.J., Burkhardt M.E. Potential power and power use: An investigation of structure and behavior. Academy of Management Journal 1993, 36:441-470. doi: 10.2307/256588.
2. Burt R.S. Structural holes 1992, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
3. Buss D.M., Barnes M. Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1986, 50:559-570. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.559.
4. Chirumbolo A., Livi S., Mannetti L., Pierro A., Kruglanski A.W. Effects of need for closure on creativity in small group interactions. European Journal of Personality 2004, 18:265-278. doi: 10.1002/per.518.
5. Coleman J.S. Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 1988, 94:S95-S120. doi: 10.1086/228943.
6. Coleman J.S. Foundations of social theory 1990, The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
7. de Dreu C.K., Koole S.L., Oldersma F.L. On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the use of heuristics in negotiation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 1999, 25:348.
8. De Soto C.B. Learning a social structure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology 1960, 60:417. doi: 10.1037/h0047511.
9. De Soto C.B., Henley N.M., London M. Balance and the grouping schema. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1968, 8:1-7. doi: 10.1037/h0025321.
10. Eberhardt J.L., Davies P.G., Purdie-Vaughns V.J., Johnson S.L. Looking deathworthy. Psychological Science 2006, 17:383-386. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01716.x.
11. Flynn F.J., Reagans R.E., Amanatullah E.T., Ames D.R. Helping one's way to the top: Self-monitors achieve status by helping others and knowing who helps whom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2006, 91:1123. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.6.1123.
12. Freeman L.C. Filling in the blanks: A theory of cognitive categories and the structure of social affiliation. Social Psychology Quarterly 1992, 55:118-127. doi: 10.2307/2786941.
13. Fu J.H., Morris M.W., Lee S., Chao M., Chiu C., Hong Y. Epistemic motives and cultural conformity: Need for closure, culture, and context as determinants of conflict judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2007, 92:191-207.
14. Goldstone R.L. Unitization during category learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 2000, 26:86-112. doi: 10.1037/0096-1523.26.1.86.
15. Granovetter M.S. The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology 1973, 78:1360. doi: 10.1086/225469.
16. Holland P.W., Leinhardt S. Transitivity in structural models of small groups. Small Group Research 1971, 2:107-124.
17. Ibarra H., Kilduff M., Tsai W. Zooming in and out: Connecting individuals and collectivities at the frontiers of organizational network research. Organization Science 2005, 16:359. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1050.0129.
18. Janicik G.A., Larrick R.P. Social network schemas and the learning of incomplete networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2005, 88:348-364. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.88.2.348.
19. Jost J.T., Glaser J., Kruglanski A.W., Sulloway F.J. Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 2003, 129:339-375. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.129.3.339.
20. Kilduff M., Crossland C., Tsai W., Krackhardt D. Organizational network perceptions versus reality: A small world after all?. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 2008, 107:15-28. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2007.12.003.
21. Krackhardt D. Cognitive social structures. Social Networks 1987, 9:109-134. doi: 10.1016/0378-8733(87)90009-8.
22. Krackhardt D., Kilduff M. Whether close or far: Social distance effects on perceived balance in friendship networks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1999, 76:770-782. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.76.5.770.
23. Kruglanski A.W. Motivations for judging and knowing: Implications for causal attribution. The handbook of motivation and cognition 1990, 2:333-386. Guilford Press, New York, NY. E.T. Higgins, R.M. Sorrentino (Eds.).
24. Kruglanski A.W., Atash M.N., DeGrada E., Mannetti L., Pierro A., Webster D.M. Psychological theory testing versus psychometric nay-saying: Comment on Neuberg et al.'s (1997) critique of the Need for Closure Scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, 73:1005-1016. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.73.5.1005.
25. Kruglanski A.W., Shah J.Y., Pierro A., Mannetti L. When similarity breeds content: Need for closure and the allure of homogeneous and self-resembling groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2002, 83:648-662. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.83.3.648.
26. Kruglanski A.W., Webster D.M. Motivated closing of the mind: "Seizing" and"freezing." Psychological Review 1996, 103:263. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.103.2.263.
27. Kruglanski A.W., Webster D.M., Klem A. Motivated resistance and openness to persuasion in the presence or absence of prior information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1993, 65:861-876.
28. Laumann E.O., Knoke D. The organizational state: Social choice in national policy domains 1987, University of Wisconsin Press, Madison.
29. Lin N. Social capital: A theory of social structure and action 2001, Cambridge University Press, London, England.
30. Louch H. Personal network integration: Transitivity and homophily in strong-tie relations. Social Networks 2000, 22:45-64. doi: 10.1016/S0378-8733(00)00015-0.
31. Mannetti L., Pierro A., Kruglanski A., Taris T., Bezinovic P. A cross-cultural study of the Need for Cognitive Closure Scale: Comparing its structure in Croatia, Italy, USA and the Netherlands. British Journal of Social Psychology 2002, 41:139-156. doi: 10.1348/014466602165108.
32. McPherson M., Smith-Lovin L., Cook J.M. Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 2001, 27:415-444.
33. Neuberg S.L., Judice T.N., West S.G. What the Need for Closure Scale measures and what it does not: Toward differentiating among related epistemic motives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1997, 72:1396-1412. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1396.
34. Newcomb T.M. The acquaintance process 1961, Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, New York, NY.
35. Picek J.S., Sherman S.J., Shiffrin R.M. Cognitive organization and coding of social structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1975, 31:758-768. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.31.4.758.
36. Pierro A., Mannetti L., Kruglanski A.W., Sleeth-Keppler D. Relevance override: On the reduced impact of "cues" under high-motivation conditions of persuasion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 2004, 86:251-264.
37. Podolny J., Baron J. Resources and relationships: Social networks and mobility in the workplace. American Sociological Review 1997, 62:673-693. doi: 10.2307/2657354.
38. Rabe-Hesketh S., Skrondal A. Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata 2005, Stata Corp, College Station, TX.
39. Reagans R., Zuckerman E. All in the family. Industrial and Corporate Change 2008, 17:979-999. doi: 10.1093/icc/dtn037.
40. Rubin Z., Zajonc R.B. Structural bias and generalization in the learning of social structures. Journal of Personality 1969, 37:310-324. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1969.tb01747.x.
41. Sacco J.M., Scheu C.R., Ryan A.M., Schmitt N. An investigation of race and sex similarity effects in interviews: A multilevel approach to relational demography. Journal of Applied Psychology 2003, 88:852-865. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.852.
42. Shah J.Y., Kruglanski A.W., Thompson E.P. Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-group bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1998, 75:383-393. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.75.2.383.
43. Tetlock P.E. Expert political judgment: How good is it? How can we know? 2005, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
44. Van Hiel A., Mervielde I. The need for closure and the spontaneous use of complex and simple cognitive structures. The Journal of Social Psychology 2003, 143:559-568. doi: 10.1080/00224540309598463.
45. von Hecker U. How do logical inference rules help construct social mental models?. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 1997, 33:367-400. doi: 10.1006/jesp.1997.1325.
46. Watson D., Klohnen E.C., Casillas A., Nus S.E., Haig J., Berry D.S. Match makers and deal breakers: Analyses of assortative mating in newlywed couples. Journal of Personality 2004, 72:1029-1068. doi: 10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00289.x.
47. Webster D.M., Kruglanski A.W. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1994, 67:1049-1062. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.67.6.1049.
48. Zajonc R.B., Burnstein E. The learning of balanced and unbalanced social structures. Journal of Personality 1965, 33:153-163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01378.x.
49. Zajonc R.B., Burnstein E. Structural balance, reciprocity, and positivity as sources of cognitive bias. Journal of Personality 1965, 33:570-583. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1965.tb01403.x.
50. Zajonc R.B., Sherman S.J. Structural balance and the induction of relations. Journal of Personality 1967, 35:635-650. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1967.tb01453.x.