We offer an integration of theory and method in the study of intergroup social associations. Specifically, we show that models for intergroup association tables developed using generic log-linear methods for categorical data analysis embody a general theoretical point of view on the driving force behind intergroup association, namely, as the outcome of a probabilistic process of repulsion from dissimilar others. We develop this argument and illustrate it with intermarriage data. We conclude by identifying the advantages that accrue to both theory and method when the theoretical assumptions underlying the application of a generic statistical methodology are clearly understood.
AgrestiAlan. 2002. Categorical Data Analysis. 2nd ed.New York: Wiley.
2.
BlauPeter M.1977. Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. New York: Free Press.
3.
BlauPeter M.1994. Structural Contexts of Opportunities. Chicago: Chicago University Press.
4.
BlauPeter M.BeekerCarolynFitzpatrickKevin M.1984. “Intersecting Social Affiliations.” Social Forces62(3):585–606.
5.
BlauPeter M.BlumTerry C.SchwartzJoseph E.1982. “Heterogeneity and Intermarriage.” American Sociological Review47(1):45–62.
6.
BlauPeter M.SchwartzJoseph E.1984. Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic Press.
7.
BlumTerry C.1984. “Racial Inequality and Salience: An Examination of Blau’s Theory of Social Structure.” Social Forces62(3):607–17.
8.
BlumTerry C.1985. “Structural Constraints on Interpersonal Relations: A Test of Blau’s Macrosociological Theory.” American Journal of Sociology91(3):511–21.
9.
CharlesCamille Zubrinsky. 2000. “Neighborhood Racial-composition Preferences: Evidence from a Multiethnic Metropolis.” Social Problems47(3):379–407.
10.
CohenBernard P.1963. Conflict and Conformity. A Probability Model and Its Application. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
11.
CollinsRandall. 1988. Theoretical Sociology. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
12.
DomańskiHenryk. 2008. “A New Dimension of Social Stratification in Poland? Class Membership and Electoral Voting in 1991–2001.” European Sociological Review24(2):169–82.
13.
DomańskiHenrykPrzybyszDariusz. 2007. “Educational Homogamy in 22 European Countries.” European Societies9(4):495–526.
14.
EriksonRobertGoldthorpeJohn H.1992. The Constant Flux: A Study of Class Mobility in Industrial Societies. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
15.
FararoThomas J.1981. “Biased Networks and Social Structure Theorems.” Social Networks3(2):137–59.
FararoThomas J.SkvoretzJohn. 1984. “Biased Networks and Social Structure Theorems: Part II.” Social Networks6(3):223–58.
18.
FararoThomas J.SkvoretzJohn. 1989. “The Biased Net Theory of Social Structure and the Problem of Integration.” Pp. 212–255 in Sociological Theories in Progress: New Formulations, edited by BergerJosephZelditchMorrisJr.AndersonBo. Newbury Park: Sage.
19.
FeathermanDavid. L.HauserRobert M.1978. Opportunity and Change. New York: Academic Press.
20.
FoschiMartha. 1997. “On Scope Conditions.” Small Group Research28(4):535–55.
21.
GoodmanLeo A.2007. “Statistical Magic and/or Statistical Serendipity: An Age of Progress in the Analysis of Categorical Data.” Annual Review of Sociology33:1–19.
22.
GoodmanLeo A.KruskalWilliam H.1954. “Measures of Association for Cross Classifications.” Journal of the American Statistical Association49: 732–764.
23.
GruskyDavid. B.HauserRobert M.1984. “Comparative Social Mobility Revisited: Models of Convergence and Divergence in 16 Countries.” American Sociological Review49(1):19–38.
24.
HauserRobert M.1978. “A Structural Model of the Mobility Table.” Social Forces56(3):919–53.
25.
HeckathornDouglas D.1984. “Mathematical Theory Construction in Sociology: Analytic Power, Scope, and Descriptive Accuracy as Trade-offs.” Journal of Mathematical Sociology10(3/4):295–323.
26.
HoutMichael. 1983. Mobility Tables. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
27.
HuckfeldtRobert R.1983. “Social Contexts, Social Networks, and Urban Neighborhoods: Environmental Constraints on Friendship Choice.” American Journal of Sociology89(3):651–69.
28.
KalmijnMatthijs. 1991. “Status Homogamy in the United States.” American Journal of Sociology97:496–523.
29.
KalmijnMatthijs. 1998. “Intermarriage and Homogamy: Causes, Patterns, Trends.” Annual Review of Sociology24:395–421.
30.
KatrňákTomášFučíkPetrLuijkxRuud. 2012. “The Relationship between Educational Homogamy and Educational Mobility in 29 European Countries.” International Sociology27: 551–573.
31.
KnokeDavidBurkePeter J.1980. Log-linear Models. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
32.
ManzoGianluca. 2006. “Generative Mechanisms and Multivariate Statistical Analysis: Modeling Educational Opportunity Inequality with a Multi-matrix Log-linear Topological Model: Contributions and Limitations.” Quality and Quantity40(5):721–58.
33.
MarsdenPeter V.1981. “Models and Methods for Characterizing the Structural Parameters of Groups.” Social Networks3(1):1–27.
34.
R Development Core Team. 2009. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
35.
RapoportAnatol. 1963. “Mathematical Models of Social Interaction.” Pp. 493–579 in Handbook of Mathematical Sociology, vol. 2, edited by LuceR. D.BushR. R.GalanterE.New York: Wiley.
36.
RapoportAnatol. 1979. “A Probabilistic Approach to Networks.” Social Networks2(1):1–18.
37.
RytinaSteven. 1982. “Structural Constraints on Intergroup Contacts: Size, Proportion, and Intermarriage.” Pp. 81–100 in Social Structure and Network Analysis, edited by MarsdenP. V.LinN.Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
38.
RytinaStevenBlauPeter M.BlumTerry C.SchwartzJoseph E.1988. “Inequality and Intermarriage: A Paradox of Motive and Constraint.” Social Forces66(3):645–75.
39.
SkvoretzJohn. 1982. “Comment on Fararo’s ‘Biased Networks and Social Structure Theorems.’”Social Networks3(4):313–15.
40.
SkvoretzJohn. 1983. “Salience, Heterogeneity and Consolidation of Parameters: Civilizing Blau’s Primitive Theory.” American Sociological Review48(3):370–85.
41.
SkvoretzJohn. 1985. “Random and Biased Networks: Simulations and Approximations.” Social Networks7(3):225–61.
42.
SkvoretzJohn. 1990a. “Biased Net Theory: Approximations, Simulations, and Observations.” Social Networks12(3):217–38.
43.
SkvoretzJohn. 1990b. “Social Structure and Intermarriage: A Reanalysis.” Pp. 375–96 in Structures of Power and Constraint: Papers in Honour of Peter M. Blau, edited by CalhounC.MeyerM. W.ScottW. R.Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
44.
SkvoretzJohn. 1991. “Theoretical and Methodological Models of Networks and Relations.” Social Networks13(3):275–90.
45.
SkvoretzJohn. 1998. “Theoretical Models: Sociology’s Missing Links.” Pp. 238–52 in What Is Social Theory? The Philosophical Debates, edited by SicaA.Malden, MA: Blackwell.
46.
SkvoretzJohn. 2013. “Diversity, Integration, and Social Ties: Attraction versus Repulsion as Drivers of Intra- and Intergroup Relations.” American Journal of Sociology119(2):486–517.
47.
SkvoretzJohnFararoThomas J.1986. “Inequality and Association: A Biased Net Theory.” Current Perspectives in Social Theory7:29–50.
48.
SkvoretzJohnFararoThomas J.AgneessensFilip. 2004. “Advances in Biased Net Theory: Definitions, Derivations, and Estimations.” Social Networks26(2):113–39.
49.
SmitsJeroenUlteeWout C.LammersJan. 1998. “Educational Homogamy in 65 Countries: An Explanation of Differences in Openness Using Country-level Explanatory Variables.” American Sociological Review63(2):264–85.
50.
SmitsJereonUlteeWout C.LammersJan. 1999. “Occupational Homogamy in Eight Countries of the European Union, 1975–89.” Acta Sociologica42(1):55–68.
51.
UlteeWout C.LuijkxRuud. 1990. “Educational Heterogamy and Father-to-son Occupational Mobility in 23 Industrial Nations: General Societal Openness or Compensatory Strategies of Reproduction?” European Sociological Review6(2):125–49.
