Facebook, the largest social networking site in the world, has overcome the structural barriers that historically constrain individuals to reach out to different others. Through the platform, people from all walks of life and virtually any location can develop diverse friendships online. However, friendships on Facebook have been as segregated as friendships in real life. This research sought to understand why the leading social networking site intended to “bring the world closer together” retains segregated friendship. In doing so, I employed a series of agent-based simulations based on the Framework for Intergroup Relations and Multiple Affiliations Networks (FIRMAN). As demonstrated, Facebook has primarily enhanced users’ capacity to maintain a larger number of friendships (tie capacity), but it has done little to empower users’ ability to accept diversity and befriend different others (tie outreachability). Facebook must focus on the latter should they truly wish to contribute to the development of a more inclusive society. While in this study I focus on ethnically segregated friendship on Facebook, I argue that the same explanation might also hold for racially and ideologically segregated friendships on other bidirectional social networking sites.
AtenK.DiRenzoM.ShatnawiD. (2017). Gender and professional e-networks: Implications of gender heterophily on job search facilitation and outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 470–478. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.056
2.
BahnsA. J.SpringerL. S.TheC. (2015). Fostering diverse friendships: The role of beliefs about the value of diversity. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 18(4), 475–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430214566893
3.
BarberáP.JostJ. T.NaglerJ.TuckerJ. A.BonneauR. (2015). Tweeting from left to right: Is online political communication more than an echo chamber?Psychological Science, 26(10), 1531–1542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615594620
4.
BarnettG. A.BenefieldG. A. (2017). Predicting international Facebook ties through cultural homophily and other factors. New Media and Society, 19(2), 217–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815604421
BonabeauE. (2002). Agent-based modeling: Methods and techniques for simulating human systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 99(Suppl 3), 7280–7287. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.082080899
7.
BoshmafY.MuslukhovI.BeznosovK.RipeanuM. (2011). The socialbot network: When bots socialize for fame and moneyProceedings of the 27th Annual Computer Security Applications Conference (pp. 93–102). Association for Computing Machinery. http://137.82.84.194/record/258/files/258.pdf
8.
BouchillonB. C. (2021). Facebooking for good: Online contact to address offline conflict. Social Science Computer Review, 39(3), 353–370. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439319874052
9.
BoutylineA.WillerR. (2017). The social structure of political echo chambers: Variation in ideological homophily in online networks. Political Psychology, 38(3), 551–569. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12337
10.
CampigottoN.RapalliniC.RustichiniA. (2021). School friendship networks, homophily and multiculturalism: Evidence from European countries. Journal of Population Economics, 35(4), 1687–1722. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00148-020-00819-w
11.
ChaudhryI.GruzdA. (2020). Expressing and challenging racist discourse on Facebook: How social media weaken the “Spiral of Silence’’ theory.”. Policy and Internet, 12(1), 88–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/poi3.197
12.
CsardiG.NepuszT. (2006). The igraph software package for complex network research. InterJournal, Complex Systems, 1695(5), 1–9.
13.
DehghaniM.JohnsonK.HooverJ.SagiE.GartenJ.ParmarN. J.VaiseyS.IlievR.GrahamJ.DehghaniM.JohnsonK.HooverJ.GartenJ.ParmarN. J.VaiseyS.GrahamJ. (2016). Purity homophily in social networks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(3), 366–375. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000139
14.
DunbarR. I. M. (2016). Do online social media cut through the constraints that limit the size of offline social networks?Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150292. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150292
FinkC. (2018). Dangerous speech, anti-Muslim violence, and Facebook in Myanmar. Journal of International Affairs, 71(15), 43–52. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26508117
18.
FirmansyahF. M.PratamaA. R. (2021). Why do homogeneous friendships persist in a diverse population? Making sense of homophily. SocArXiv papers. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/zr7p3
19.
FischerM. J. (2011). Interracial contact and changes in the racial attitudes of white college students. Social Psychology of Education, 14(4), 547–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9161-3
20.
HofstraB.CortenR.van TubergenF. (2021). Beyond the core: Who has larger social networks?Social Forces, 99(3), 1274–1305. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaa031
21.
HofstraB.CortenR.van TubergenF.EllisonN. B. (2017). Sources of segregation in social networks: A novel approach using Facebook. American Sociological Review, 82(3), 625–656. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417705656
22.
HojjatM.MoyerA.HalpinA. M. (eds), (2017). The psychology of friendship. Oxford University Press.
23.
HuberG. A.MalhotraN. (2017). Political homophily in social relationships: Evidence from online dating behavior. The Journal of Politics, 79(1), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1086/687533
24.
IkedaK. K.RicheyS. (2009). The impact of diversity in informal social networks on tolerance in Japan. British Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123408000574
25.
IlmarinenV. J.LönnqvistJ. E.PaunonenS. (2016). Similarity-attraction effects in friendship formation: Honest platoon-mates prefer each other but dishonest do not. Personality and Individual Differences, 92, 153–158. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.040
26.
IyengarS.WestwoodS. J. (2015). Fear and loathing across party lines: New evidence on group polarization. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 690–707. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12152
27.
JacksonJ. C.RandD.LewisK.NortonM. I.GrayK. (2017). Agent-based modeling: A guide for social psychologists. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(4), 387–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617691100
28.
JoynerK.KaoG. (2000). School racial composition and adolescent racial homophily. Social Science Quarterly, 81(3), 810–825. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42864005
29.
KarimiF.GénoisM.WagnerC.SingerP.StrohmaierM. (2018). Homophily influences ranking of minorities in social networks. Scientific Reports, 8(1), 11077–11112. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-018-29405-7
30.
KorkmazG.KuhlmanC. J.GoldsteinJ.Vega-RedondoF. (2020). A computational study of homophily and diffusion of common knowledge on social networks based on a model of Facebook. Social Network Analysis and Mining, 10(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13278-019-0615-5
31.
LaniadoD.VolkovichY.KapplerK.KaltenbrunnerA. (2016). Gender homophily in online dyadic and triadic relationships. EPJ Data Science, 5(1), 19. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0080-6
32.
LeeC. S.TherriaultD. J.LinderholmT. (2012). On the cognitive benefits of cultural experience: Exploring the relationship between studying abroad and creative thinking. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 768–778. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2857
LiS.ZizziS. (2018). A case study of international students’ social adjustment, friendship development, and physical activity. Journal of International Students, 8(1), 1134317. https://doi.org/10.32674/jis.v8i1.171
35.
LönnqvistJ. E.ItkonenJ. V. A. A. (2016). Homogeneity of personal values and personality traits in Facebook social networks. Journal of Research in Personality, 60, 24–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2015.11.001
36.
MacalC. M. (2016). Everything you need to know about agent-based modelling and simulation. Journal of Simulation, 10(2), 144–156. https://doi.org/10.1057/jos.2016.7
37.
ManagoA. M.TaylorT.GreenfieldP. M. (2012). Me and my 400 friends: The anatomy of college students' Facebook networks, their communication patterns, and well-being. Developmental Psychology, 48(2), 369–380. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026338
38.
Matamoros-FernándezA. (2017). Platformed racism: The mediation and circulation of an Australian race-based controversy on Twitter, Facebook and YouTube. Information, Communication and Society, 20(6), 930–946. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2017.1293130
39.
McMillanC. (2022). Worth the weight: Conceptualizing and measuring strong versus weak tie homophily. Social Networks, 68(June 2021), 139–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socnet.2021.06.003
40.
MiškolciJ.KováčováL.RigováE. (2018). Countering hate speech on Facebook: The case of the Roma Minority in Slovakia. Social Science Computer Review, 38(2), 128–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439318791786
41.
MouwT.EntwisleB. (2006). Residential segregation and interracial friendship in schools. American Journal of Sociology, 112(2), 394–441. https://doi.org/10.1086/506415
42.
MuscanellN. L.GuadagnoR. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old: Gender and personality differences in social networking use. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(1), 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.08.016
43.
NoëN.WhitakerR. M.AllenS. M. (2018). Personality homophily and geographic distance in Facebook. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 21(6), 361–366. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2017.0615
44.
PachuckiM. C.LealD. F. (2020). Is having an educationally diverse social network good for health?Network Science, 8(3), 418–444. https://doi.org/10.1017/nws.2020.14
45.
PariserE. (2011). The filter bubbles: What the internet is hiding from you. Penguin Books.
46.
PatilS. (2012). Will you be my friend? Responses to friendship requests from strangers. In Proceedings of the 2012 iConference. Association for Computing Machinery, 634–635. https://doi.org/10.1145/2132176.2132318
SeebruckR.SavageS. V. (2014). The differential effects of racially homophilous sponsorship ties on job opportunities in an elite labor market: The case of NCAA basketball coaching. Sociological Inquiry, 84(1), 75–101. https://doi.org/10.1111/soin.12021
49.
SmithJ. A.McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL. (2014). Social distance in the United States: Sex, race, religion, age, and education homophily among confidants, 1985 to 2004. American Sociological Review, 79(3), 432–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122414531776
50.
SquazzoniF.JagerW.EdmondsB. (2014). Social simulation in the social sciences: A brief overview. Social Science Computer Review, 32(3), 279–294. https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439313512975
TitzmannP. F.SilbereisenR. K.MeschG. S. (2012). Change in friendship homophily: A German israeli comparison of adolescent immigrants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 43(3), 410–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022111399648
54.
van TubergenF. (2015). Ethnic boundaries in core discussion networks: A multilevel social network study of Turks and Moroccans in The Netherlands. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 41(1), 101–116. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369183X.2014.886955
55.
VukčevićI. (2021). Facebook Oversight Board’s decision on the indefinite suspension of Donald Trump’s account. Pravni Zapisi, 12(1), 295–311. https://doi.org/10.5937/pravzap0-32521
56.
WimmerA.LewisK. (2010). Beyond and below racial homophily: ERG models of a friendship network documented on Facebook. AJS; American journal of sociology, 116(2), 583–642. https://doi.org/10.1086/653658
YucelD.PsaltisC. (2020). The effects of direct and indirect contact on prejudice: 2007 and 2017 results among Greek Cypriots and Turkish Cypriots. European Societies, 22(5), 610–635. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616696.2020.1793211
59.
ŽeželjI. L.IoannouM.FrancR.PsaltisC.MartinovicB. (2017). The role of inter-ethnic online friendships in prejudice reduction in post-conflict societies: Evidence from Serbia, Croatia and Cyprus. Computers in Human Behavior, 76, 386–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.041
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
