Exploring Within-Gender Differences in Friendships Using an Online Social Network.

Pietro Pollo, Tania A Reynolds, Khandis R Blake, Michael M Kasumovic
Author Information
  1. Pietro Pollo: Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, 5 Floor, Building E26, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia. pietro_pollo@hotmail.com. ORCID
  2. Tania A Reynolds: Department of Psychology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, NM, USA.
  3. Khandis R Blake: Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
  4. Michael M Kasumovic: Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of New South Wales, 5 Floor, Building E26, Kensington, NSW, 2052, Australia.

Abstract

People tend to befriend others similar to themselves, generating a pattern called homophily. However, existing studies on friendship patterns often rely on surveys that assess the perspective of relatively few participants on their friendships but do not measure actualized friendship patterns. Here, we used data from a large Slovakian online social network to assess the role of gender, age, and body mass index (BMI) in same-gender online connections among more than 400,000 users. We found that age and BMI homophily occurred in both men's and women's same-gender connections, but somewhat more strongly among men's. Yet, as women diverged in BMI, their connections were less likely to be reciprocated. We discuss how the evolutionary legacy of men's coalitional competition (e.g., warfare) and women's mating competition or recruitment of allocare providers might contribute to these patterns in modern same-gender relationships. For example, men's engagement in physical activities may lead to similar formidability levels among their same-gender peers. Altogether, our findings highlight the importance of trait similarity to same-gender friendship patterns.

Keywords

References

  1. J Health Psychol. 2018 Mar;23(4):629-639 [PMID: 28810374]
  2. Econ Hum Biol. 2008 Dec;6(3):330-49 [PMID: 18753018]
  3. Am J Phys Anthropol. 1999;Suppl 29:1-30 [PMID: 10601982]
  4. Body Image. 2008 Sep;5(3):244-50 [PMID: 18424245]
  5. Psychol Bull. 2008 May;134(3):460-76 [PMID: 18444705]
  6. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 May;1316:1-17 [PMID: 24329760]
  7. Body Image. 2005 Mar;2(1):81-6 [PMID: 18089177]
  8. Body Image. 2013 Sep;10(4):566-73 [PMID: 24008185]
  9. PLoS One. 2016 Nov 28;11(11):e0165687 [PMID: 27893748]
  10. J Adolesc Health. 2011 Oct;49(4):421-7 [PMID: 21939874]
  11. Proc Biol Sci. 2012 Jun 7;279(1736):2157-62 [PMID: 22298855]
  12. Evol Psychol. 2022 Jan-Mar;20(1):14747049211068672 [PMID: 35072522]
  13. Arch Sex Behav. 2007 Feb;36(1):79-88 [PMID: 17136591]
  14. Lancet. 1998 Aug 15;352(9127):548 [PMID: 9716069]
  15. Clin Psychol Rev. 2013 Dec;33(8):1218-36 [PMID: 24252520]
  16. N Engl J Med. 2007 Jul 26;357(4):370-9 [PMID: 17652652]
  17. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 Feb 1;108(5):1993-7 [PMID: 21245293]
  18. Int J Eat Disord. 2005 Sep;38(2):134-42 [PMID: 16134110]
  19. Econ Hum Biol. 2010 Dec;8(3):373-84 [PMID: 20627829]
  20. PeerJ. 2015 Aug 25;3:e1155 [PMID: 26336638]
  21. Phys Rev E Stat Nonlin Soft Matter Phys. 2003 Feb;67(2 Pt 2):026126 [PMID: 12636767]
  22. PLoS One. 2020 Feb 25;15(2):e0229268 [PMID: 32097427]
  23. Int J Eat Disord. 2005 May;37(4):313-20 [PMID: 15856495]
  24. Psychol Bull. 2002 Sep;128(5):699-727 [PMID: 12206191]
  25. Hum Nat. 2003 Mar;14(1):53-72 [PMID: 26189988]
  26. Hum Nat. 2008 Sep;19(3):249-62 [PMID: 26181616]
  27. Clin Psychol Rev. 2011 Jun;31(4):515-24 [PMID: 21239098]
  28. Dev Psychol. 2006 Sep;42(5):787-97 [PMID: 16953686]
  29. Hum Nat. 2007 Jun;18(2):143-61 [PMID: 26181847]
  30. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2007 Aug;33(8):1167-83 [PMID: 17578932]
  31. J Hum Evol. 2006 Nov;51(5):454-70 [PMID: 16797055]
  32. Hum Nat. 2013 Sep;24(3):336-47 [PMID: 23881574]
  33. Phys Rev Lett. 2002 Nov 11;89(20):208701 [PMID: 12443515]
  34. Trends Cogn Sci. 2018 Jan;22(1):32-51 [PMID: 29273112]
  35. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2007 Dec;57(6):977-84 [PMID: 17719127]
  36. Netw Sci (Camb Univ Press). 2014 Aug;2(2):189-212 [PMID: 25525503]
  37. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2020 Nov;119(5):979-998 [PMID: 32463270]
  38. J Soc Psychol. 1985 Apr;125(2):157-68 [PMID: 4057968]
  39. PLoS One. 2023 Jun 28;18(6):e0287101 [PMID: 37379261]
  40. Br J Psychol. 2001 May;92 Part 2:391-402 [PMID: 11802880]
  41. Psychol Sci. 2020 Apr;31(4):408-423 [PMID: 32196435]
  42. Arch Sex Behav. 2022 Oct;51(7):3225-3256 [PMID: 33398709]
  43. Sci Rep. 2012;2:370 [PMID: 22518274]
  44. Body Image. 2013 Sep;10(4):653-6 [PMID: 23954197]
  45. Body Image. 2005 Jun;2(2):115-28 [PMID: 18089180]
  46. Integr Comp Biol. 2023 Oct 10;63(4):891-906 [PMID: 37156506]
  47. Science. 2003 Nov 14;302(5648):1231-4 [PMID: 14615543]
  48. Nat Hum Behav. 2019 Nov;3(11):1154-1163 [PMID: 31406338]
  49. Psychol Bull. 2005 Sep;131(5):635-53 [PMID: 16187849]
  50. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2008 Aug;34(8):1023-36 [PMID: 18593866]
  51. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2020 Dec 7;: [PMID: 33288655]
  52. Am J Psychiatry. 2000 Aug;157(8):1297-301 [PMID: 10910794]
  53. Front Psychol. 2018 Jul 27;9:1320 [PMID: 30100895]
  54. Eat Weight Disord. 2014 Jun;19(2):159-68 [PMID: 24668325]
  55. J Psychosom Res. 2004 Jun;56(6):675-85 [PMID: 15193964]
  56. R Soc Open Sci. 2016 Apr 06;3(4):160097 [PMID: 27152223]
  57. Front Psychol. 2014 Feb 28;5:179 [PMID: 24592253]
  58. PLoS One. 2009 Jun 03;4(6):e5802 [PMID: 19492066]
  59. Folia Primatol (Basel). 1971;15(3):163-82 [PMID: 5001014]
  60. Cardiol Rev. 2014 Jul-Aug;22(4):163-70 [PMID: 24896249]
  61. Psychol Sci. 2008 May;19(5):439-40 [PMID: 18466403]

MeSH Term

Humans
Male
Female
Friends
Adult
Interpersonal Relations
Sex Factors
Middle Aged
Young Adult
Social Networking
Body Mass Index
Slovakia
Online Social Networking
Adolescent
Age Factors

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0same-genderpatternsmen'scompetitionfriendshipBMIconnectionsamongsimilarhomophilyassessonlineagewomen'sPeopletendbefriendothersgeneratingpatterncalledHoweverexistingstudiesoftenrelysurveysperspectiverelativelyparticipantsfriendshipsmeasureactualizeduseddatalargeSlovakiansocialnetworkrolegenderbodymassindex400000usersfoundoccurredsomewhatstronglyYetwomendivergedlesslikelyreciprocateddiscussevolutionarylegacycoalitionalegwarfarematingrecruitmentallocareprovidersmightcontributemodernrelationshipsexampleengagementphysicalactivitiesmayleadformidabilitylevelspeersAltogetherfindingshighlightimportancetraitsimilarityExploringWithin-GenderDifferencesFriendshipsUsingOnlineSocialNetworkBodyimageEvolutionarypsychologyFemaleFriendshippreferenceIntra-genderMatingrivalry

Similar Articles

Cited By