Search

While scholars have long established that city dwellers choose with whom to develop relationships on the basis of social proximity, spatial proximity remains the basis for neighbour relations involving greetings, social conversation, and the exchange of services. Few studies have systematically compared the respective roles of spatial and social proximity in neighbour relations. In this paper, we investigate these two factors through statistical analysis of four social network datasets representing relationships within four rented apartment buildings in Geneva, Switzerland. Using a measure of distance that takes into account how the layout and materiality of buildings shape relationships through accessibility, visibility and audibility, we compare the effects of spatial proximity with the effects of individual determinants and similarity. Our study also breaks new ground by comparing weak ties – between people who interact regularly – and "invisible ties", or ties to familiar strangers. Our study confirms that spatial proximity increases the likelihood of weak ties and questions the underlying mechanisms. It also shows that in addition to sociability, familiarity and anonymity are constitutive dimensions of neighbouring, even at the scale of buildings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Little is known about tie loss and the role of dissimilarity regarding in relevant social dimensions (gender, age, ethnicity, and education). • We analysed the Survey on the Social Networks of the Dutch (SSND , 2006/2007, 2013/2014) containing data on 441 ego networks. • Event history analyses showed that dissimilar ties that were lost faster and mostly in the very early years of the relationship. • Meeting opportunities, preferences for similarity and network embeddedness were unable to explain tie loss. • Dissimilarity is a powerful driver of tie loss, and more research is needed to better understand the underlying mechanisms. Previous research finds that individuals tend to form ties with similar others much more often than with dissimilar others. However, we know relatively little about tie loss and to what extent this is driven by (dis)similarity. In this paper, we argue that ties to persons who are dissimilar with regard to gender, age, ethnicity, and education are lost faster than ties to similar persons – and we test three explanations for this faster decay of ties with dissimilar others: lack of meeting opportunities, preferences for similarity, and lower network embeddedness. To test these explanations, we analysed two waves of the Survey on the Social Networks of the Dutch (SSND , 2007, 2014). These SSND -waves contain comprehensive longitudinal panel data on ego networks of 441 respondents, who were interviewed about a wide range of relationships, their alters' sociodemographic characteristics, where and when they met their alters, as well as how and whether they maintain these relationships. We modelled tie loss by event history analyses. Results show that ties to persons who were dissimilar are more likely to be lost faster, and that tie loss occurs mostly in the early years of a relationship. However, meeting opportunities, preferences for similarity, and network embeddedness are unable to explain why ties to dissimilar others are lost faster. We conclude that dissimilarity is a powerful driver of tie loss, and that more arguments and research are needed to fully understand the underlying mechanisms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we explore how the neighborhood composition and individual choice relate to the network composition of different social groups. We predict that groups that engage more with the neighborhood, and those who control more resources have networks that are more homogenous than expected given the neighborhood composition. We also explore how two types of biased association (i.e., attraction to similarity and rejection of dissimilarity) vary by neighborhood composition. Analyzing neighborhood register data and the Survey of the Social Networks of the Dutch (2014), we find that networks of neighbors vary in their degree of homogeneity depending on the social group. Both groups that control more resources, and those who engaged more with the neighborhood had networks that were more homogeneous than expected given the neighborhood composition. Individual choice (i.e., attraction to similarity and rejection of dissimilarity) varied depending on both the neighborhood composition and group membership. Our findings show that neighborhood mixing with the aim to create intergroup ties might be effective for certain groups (i.e., middle aged, married), but it might backfire for others (i.e., retired individuals). Urban policies might be more effective when tailored to the needs of different social groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While previous research has shown that personality shapes social networks, we know very little about the relationship between these important psychological characteristics and the creation of social capital. In this article, we argue that personality shapes individuals' ability to create social capital, and we predict positive associations between each of the Big Five personality traits and social capital. We tested our hypotheses using the Social Survey of the Networks of the Dutch, 2014, which contains data on about 1,069 respondents, including social capital and Big Five personality measures. Our findings showed that personality and social capital were related such that extraversion and openness predicted instrumental social capital, and extraversion, emotional stability, and agreeableness predicted expressive social capital. Conscientiousness benefited instrumental social capital when respondents were older or when social capital was accessed via weak ties. We discuss these findings in light of existing explanations of the creation of social capital. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]