In spite of the currently growing interest in the study of negative relationships, little is known about the processes that influence the emergence of negative ties. This paper presents the results of an empirical test of the theory of “Hostile Ties” proposed by Davide Barrera, about the probability of hostile tie’s creation as consequence of the dyad’s and the network’s attributes, in relation to the degree of functional interdependence in the considered network. Using the data of a research about relationships among high school students, I have tested a series of multilevel logistic models, estimating the probability of the emergence of a negative tie at time t2, as a function of the theory inspired predictors measured at time t1. Our results confirm the importance of good relational assets as a shield against new hostile ties. On the other hand, the propositions about dyadic and network attributes role are not corroborated.
BarreraD (2008) Ostracism in Small Groups: A Theory of Hostile Ties. Working paper, ICS Department of Sociology, Utrecht University.
2.
BoudonR (1981) The Logic of Social Action: An Introduction to Sociological Analysis. London: Routledge and Kegan.
3.
BuzziCCavalliADe LilloA (2007), Rapporto Giovani. VI indagine sulla condizione giovanile in Italia, Bologna, il Mulino.
4.
BrassDJLabiancaG (1999). “Social Capital, Social Liabilities, and Social Resources Management.” In LeendersRTAJGabbayS (eds.), Corporate Social Capital and Liability. Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
5.
ColemanJS (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Nathalie Chauvac,
6.
CloutierLDefossezAAkermannGde FedericoA (2014) Negative Ties, Lost Ties, Latent Ties. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 121: 5–9
7.
EllwardtLLabiancaGWittekR (2012) Who are the Objects of Positive and Negative Gossip at Work? A Social Network Perspective on Workplace Gossip. Social Networks, 34: 193–205.
8.
FerrandA (2014) Les significations des zéros dans les réseaux personnels. Bulletin of Sociological Methodology/Bulletin de Méthodologie Sociologique, 121: 10–16.
9.
FollisM (2010) Toward a Negative Ties Theory. Working Paper, Dipartimento di StudiSociali, Università di Torino.
HedströmP (2005) Dissecting the Social. On the Principles of Analytical Sociology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
12.
HeiderF (1946) Attitudes and Cognitive Organization. Journal of Psychology, 21:107–12.
13.
HeiderF (1958) The Psychology Of Interpersonal Relations. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
14.
HoggMA (1992) The Social Psychology of Group Cohesiveness: From Attraction to Social Identity. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf.
15.
IbarraH (1995) Race, Opportunity, and Diversity Of Social Circles in Managerial Networks. Academy of Management Journal, 38: 673–703.
16.
IbarraHAndrewsSB (1993) Power, Social Influence, and Sense Making: Effects Of Network Centrality and Proximity on Employee Perceptions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38: 277–303.
17.
JohnsonDWJohnsonRT (1999) Learning Together and Alone. Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Learning. Fifth edition, Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
18.
KelleyHHThibautJW (1978) Interpersonal Relations: A Theory of Interdependence. New York: Wiley.
19.
KrackhardtD (1987) Cognitive Social Structures. Social Networks, 9: 109–34.
20.
Labianca G BrassDJGrayB (1998) Social Networks and the Perception of Inter Group Conflict: The Role of Negative Relationships and Third Parties. Academy of Management Journal, 41: 55–67.
21.
LabiancaGBrassDJ (2006) Exploring the Social Ledger: Negative Relationships and Negative Asymmetry in Social Networks. Academy of Management Review, 31: 596–614.
22.
LazarsfeldPFMertonRK (1954) Friendship as a Social Process: A Substantive and Methodological Analysis. In BergerM (ed.) Freedom and Control in Modern Society, New York: Van Nostrand, 18–66
23.
LinN (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. NY: Cambridge University Press.
24.
MarquesJMPaezD (1994). The black sheep effect: social categorisation, rejection of ingroup deviates, and perception of group variability. In StroebeW.HewstoneM. (eds.) European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 37–68.
25.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) “Birds of a Feather: Homophily in Social Networks”. Annual Review of Sociology. 27:415–444.
26.
MehraAKilduffMBrassDJ (2001) The Social Network of High and Low Self-Monitors: Implications for Workplace Performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 121–46.
27.
OppK (2002) When Do Norms Emerge by Human Design and When by the Unintended Consequences of Human Actions? The Example of No-Smoking Norm. Rationality and Society14: 131–58.
28.
RodaR (2010) Measuring Negative Ties: A Combined Approach. In XXX SUNBELT Conference, 29 June 2010 to 4 July 2010, Riva del Garda, Italy.
29.
SelfhoutMBurkWBranjeSDenissenJvan AkenMMeeusW (2010) Emerging Late Adolescent Friendship Networks and Big Five Personality Traits: A Social Network Approach. Journal of Personality, 78, 509–38.
30.
SparroweRTLidenRCWayneSJKraimerML (2001) Social Networks and the Performance of Individuals and Groups. Academy of Management Journal, 44: 316–25.
31.
TajfelHTurnerJC (1979) An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict. In AustinWGWorchelS (eds) The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relation. Monterey, CA: Brooks-Cole, (pp. 33–47).
32.
TurnerJCHoggMAOakesPJReicherSDWetherellMS (1987) Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Oxford: Blackwell.
33.
VodosekM (2003) “Personality and the formation of social networks”, paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta Hilton Hotel, Atlanta, GA.
34.
WassermanSFaustK (1994) Social network analysis: methods and applications, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
35.
WatsonDClarkLA (1984) “Negative affectivity: the disposition to experience aversive emotional states”. Psychological Bulletin, 96: 465–490.
36.
WhiteH (1961) “Management conflict and sociometric structure”. The American Journal of Sociology, 67: 185–199.
37.
WisemanJPDuckS (1995) Having and managing enemies: A very challenging relationship. In: DuckSWoodJ (eds.) Confronting relationship challenges (pp. 43–72). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
