Individual and structural origins of friendship and social position among professionals.

Abstract

Friendship affects individual and organizational well-being through direct relations, social positions, and complex network structures. In this study, the authors use longitudinal data from 2 groups of master's of business administration students to increase understanding of how friendship networks develop. The authors propose and test a dynamic model in which attribute similarity facilitates dyadic friendship ties, as well as similar network centrality and social position; early friendship increases later similarity in structural position and centrality; and early structural similarity enhances the likelihood of future friendship. Findings largely supported the model, demonstrating how homophily and early social contacts can jointly shape maturing friendship networks.

Social activity and structural centrality in online social networks

“…They can impact their virtual friends more effectively (Goldenberg et al, 2009) by acting as word-of-mouth channels (Brown et al, 2007;Kozinets et al, 2010;Meuter et al, 2013) as well as role models to inspire others connected to them to imitate their behavior. And, they have also been referred as ''key members'', ''influentials'', or ''central figures.''…”

From the Head and the Heart: Locating Cognition- and Affect-Based Trust in Managers' Professional Networks

“…We chose to examine these network ties because they are common exchange relationships in managers' professional lives. Various prior network research studies have also examined one or more of these ties (Gibbons, 2004;Gibbons & Olk, 2003;Ingram & Roberts, 2000;Larson, 1992;McGrath, Vance, & Grey, 2003;Sparrowe & Liden, 2005). We discuss each type of network tie separately and analyze its unique effects on trust, although the tie types are by no means mutually exclusive (e.g., ties of friendship and task advice can run to the same alter).…”

The social and economic bases of network multiplexity: Exploring the emergence of multiplex ties

“…Although an increasing number of scholars have investigated the dynamics of network evolution both at the individual (Gibbons and Olk, 2003;Buskens and Van de Rijt, 2008) and organizational (Gulati and Gargiulo, 1999;Baum et al, 2005;Shipilov et al, 2006) levels, we know relatively little about the mechanisms through which interorganizational ties become multiplex. This leads to potentially dangerous simplifications since, as Shipilov and Li recently pointed out, "when examining the determinants of dyadic relationships, many studies make a simplifying assumption that dyads arise from their members playing a single role … and as a result they are embedded in a single type of relationships only " (2012: 474).…”