Cross-Talk: The Role of Homophily and Elite Bias in Civic Associations

• Published in: Social forces Vol. 88; no. 1; pp. 147 - 173
• Main Authors: Weare, Christopher, Musso, Juliet, Jun, Kyu-Nahm
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Chapel Hill, NC The University of North Carolina Press 01.09.2009; University of North Carolina Press; Oxford University Press
• Subjects: Access; Access to Information; Associations; Attitudes; Bias; California; Citizen Participation; City councils; Civic organizations; Cliques; Collective action; Colletive Action; Communities; Community associations; Community involvement; Community Relations; Community Resources; Community structure; Computer networks; Councils; Cultural Background; Elites; Governance; Group Dynamics; Heterogeneous Grouping; Home ownership; Homogamy; Homogeneous Grouping; Homophily; Information; Interpersonal Communication; Neighborhoods; Neighbourhood associations; Networks; Organizational structure; Organizations (Groups); Participation; Pluralism; Political Attitudes; Political behavior; Political participation; Political psychology; Politics; Psychological aspects; Racial diversity; Skocpol, Theda; Social aspects; Social biases; Social Capital; Social Integration; Social integration. Social relations. Social participation; Social Networks; Social organization. Social system. Social structure; Social psychology; Socioeconomic Status; Sociology; Tolerance; U.S.A; Urban Areas; Verba, Sidney; Voluntary associations; Voluntary organizations; California; Los Angeles; United States; Los Angeles California; United States > US; Collective Action; Political attitude; Voluntary help; Social status; Association; Homophily; Social network; Elite; Community
• ISSN: 0037-7732; 1534-7605
• DOI: 10.1353/sof.0.0227

We examine the manner in which voluntary associations expose individuals to differing perspectives, or "cross-talk." Specifically we develop hypotheses based on the interactive roles of elite bias and homophily in structuring networks of democratic participation and test them on social network data of Los Angeles neighborhood councils. We find that homophily leads to boards less diverse than their communities, but does not lead to homogeneous cliques within boards. Moreover, we find that elite bias and homophily counteract each other in lower-status communities, leading to more diverse boards than would be predicted by homophily alone. We then examine the effects of assortative mixing on political attitudes and collective action, and find weak support for the proposition that associational diversity promotes tolerance and access to information.