Image Credit ~ Pixabay Social Media, the ‘tribes’ of today Why do people seem to feel better when they are part of something? People belong to social groups, religious factions, sports arenas, political affiliations, academic organizations, trade companies, and hobby groups galore. There seems to be an instinctual drive for people to find a tribe. Part of this inner drive might come from the psychological programing that meant a better chance of survival for our ancestors if they stayed in groups. Even today, being part of a larger whole can have many benefits for survival in both business and in everyday life (Chiange & Suen, 2015). Part of people’s current draw to the tribe mentality is that it “gives them a name, adding to their own and social meaning in a chaotic world” (Wilson, 2013). And although we no longer run around from village to village, our tribes are alive and well. “Online communities are actually online manifestations of physical communities, despite their strong reliance on technology and physical distance between participants” (as cited in Chiange & Suen, 2015). So, if you are part of Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, LinkedIn, or the like you are at minimum participating in groupism ~ “the elementary drive to form and take deep pleasure from in-group membership” which is at the base of tribalism (Wilson, 2013). Part of the drive to have others around, besides protection and sustainability in numbers is having others around impacts how we see ourselves. There is a general acceptance that “self-concept is determined in part by others’ views of us, or the way we think others view us” (Dolgin, 2011, p. 154). Therefore, when we surround ourselves by like-minded people who continue to ‘like’ what we do, we feel better about ourselves and what we are doing. Is homophily contagious? Homophily, or love of the same, is simply the tendency of individuals to associate with and bond with other similar people. An easy example of this is if you understand the phrase “birds of a feather flock together.” The term itself came about clear back in the 1950’s when sociologists first coined it to help explain why people “link up with one another in ways that confirm rather than contest our core beliefs” (Retica, 2006). Research is suggesting that one of the reasons that we tend to stick to our own, is that trying to get into other groups can be difficult in a number of ways, besides just beliefs. There are things like “cultural, geographical, or linguistic barriers” (Currarini, Matheson, & Redondo, 2016) that could prevent one from reaching outside their normal homophily. Perhaps to help better explain, here are some examples of non-homophily groups: Raider and Charger fans, Christians and Muslims groups, teachers and students, executives and blue collar workers, nerds and jocks, and so on. Research advocates that “race and ethnicity are clearly the biggest divide in social networks today in the United States” (); which are followed closely by education, occupation, income and religion. Due to the wide variety of groupings, two different types of homophily were distinguished in 1954 by Lazarsfeld & Merton: status homophily and value homophily (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). Status homophily was “based on information, formal, or ascribed status” were as value homophily was “based on values, attitudes, and beliefs” (McPherson, Smith-Lovin, & Cook, 2001). This drive to become and stay connected to people who are like ourselves is so strong, that recent research has even proved that opposites don’t actually attract; and that most of the time we end up liking someone that is more like ourselves (Retica, 2006). How your ‘friends’ are being digitally introduced to you If you have done any shopping or networking on-line you have more than likely experienced the “if you liked … on sites like Amazon” and suggested friends from Facebook, Instagram, and the like (Retica, 2006). These suggestions are based on algorithms specific to each site. Algorithms are nothing more than a process or set of rules to be followed in calculations or other problem-solving operations, especially by a computer. However, algorithms “are what all social media platforms run on these days” (Agrawl, 2016). If you happen to frequent Facebook there are several things that you do that will influence the algorithms. Things like how often you interacted with a type of post, how often you have hidden a type of post, and how much engagement you give a certain page will all influence what you see and what suggestions you receive (Agrawl, 2016). Twitter is following the footsteps of Facebook with following the algorithmic footsteps of relevant tweets instead of more recent (Agrawl, 2016). Likewise, Instagram has started to use algorithm based feed, to provide members with most relevant based on their previous viewing history (Agrawl, 2016). Therefore, social media sites are increasing homophily by condensing your basic viewing options or choices to that of your currently most selected groups. Continuing to narrow your digital field of view to more of that which is already comfortable and familiar with you. Although this is wonderful for their sales and marketing, it doesn’t do much for breaking down walls of fear and ignorance about anything outside our own social norms. Reference
Agrawal, A. (2016). What do social media algorithms mean for you? Forbes. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/ajagrawal/2016/04/20/what-do-social-media-algorithms-mean-for-you/#2c93fcaba515 Chiang, J. K., & Suen, H. (2015). Self-presentation and hiring recommendations in online communities: Lessons from LinkedIn. Computers in Human Behavior, 48, 516–524. Retrieved from https://courserooma.capella.edu/webapps/blackboard/content/listContent.jsp?course_id=_66384_1&content_id=_5457674_1&mode=reset Currarini, S., Matheson, J., & Redondo, F. (2016). A simple model of homophily in social networks. University of Leicester. Retrieved from https://www.le.ac.uk/economics/research/RePEc/lec/leecon/dp16-05.pdf?uol_r=d307e306 Dolgin, K. (2011). The adolescent: Development, relationships, and culture (13th ed.) Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon. McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Reviews. Retrieved from http://aris.ss.uci.edu/~lin/52.pdf Retica, A. (2006). Homophily. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2a.t-4.html Wilson, E. (2013). Tribalism, groupism, globalism: Are human brains hardwired to recognize some groups of people as friends and others as enemies? The Globalist. Retrieved from https://www.theglobalist.com/tribalism-groupism-globalism/
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Who am I?I'm Dr. Reverend Guru Davis. Archives
April 2023
Categories
All
|