1989
DOI: 10.2307/2095662
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Interracial Friendship Choices in Secondary Schools

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
205
0
5

Year Published

2004
2004
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 353 publications
(218 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
8
205
0
5
Order By: Relevance
“…Earlier studies after desegregation projects in the US (Hallinan & Smith, 1985;Hallinan & Williams, 1989) and more recent studies in the US (Bellmore, Nishina, Witkov, Graham, & Juvonen, 2007;Graham & Cohen, 1997;Kao & Joyner, 2004), Canada (Schneider, Udvari, & Dixon, 2007) and Europe (Verkuyten, 2001) suggest that crossethnic friendships are uncommon and low in quality. Undoubtedly, the social context, in particular the ethnic composition of schools and classrooms, and the ethnic status of children (majority vs. minority), plays a significant role in how peer relationships are formed during childhood (Graham, Taylor, & Ho, 2009;Kawabata & Crick, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Earlier studies after desegregation projects in the US (Hallinan & Smith, 1985;Hallinan & Williams, 1989) and more recent studies in the US (Bellmore, Nishina, Witkov, Graham, & Juvonen, 2007;Graham & Cohen, 1997;Kao & Joyner, 2004), Canada (Schneider, Udvari, & Dixon, 2007) and Europe (Verkuyten, 2001) suggest that crossethnic friendships are uncommon and low in quality. Undoubtedly, the social context, in particular the ethnic composition of schools and classrooms, and the ethnic status of children (majority vs. minority), plays a significant role in how peer relationships are formed during childhood (Graham, Taylor, & Ho, 2009;Kawabata & Crick, 2008).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 97%
“…Though groups are able to form along many different dimensions of social life, race and ethnicity represent two of the more salient dimensions for fostering group identity. Patterns of friendship networks among adolescents (Hallinan and Williams 1989;Moody 2001;Moody and White 2003;Mouw and Entwisle 2006;Quillian and Campbell 2003), the formation of work teams within organizations (Hinds et al 2000;Ruef et al 2003), and inter-group marriage (Alba and Golden 1986;Gray 1987;Jones 1991;South and Messner 1986) have all been examined with a focus on the rate of intra-and inter-racial interactions. With violence being a ubiquitous feature of urban centers, and given the significant change in the demographic composition of cities over the last half century, it is not surprising that rates and patterns of intra-and inter-personal violence have also garnered much attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For instance, researchers have adapted dyad analysis to eliminate the confounding effect of group size (Hallinan and Teixeira, 1987;Moody, 2001;Quillian and Campbell, 2003;Mouw and Entwisle, 2006); controlled individual-level structural variations, such as shared school activities (Moody, 2001) and school segregation (Mouw and Entwisle, 2006); and used exponential random graph models to take balancing reciprocity into consideration (Goodreau, 2007, Goodreau et al, 2009, Wimmer and Lewis, 2010. Furthermore, separating out the effects of structural constraints has been discussed extensively as a methodological challenge (Cheng and Xie, 2012;Currarini et al, 2010;Feld, 1981;McPherson and Smith-Lovin, 1987;Hallinan and Williams, 1989;McPherson et al, 2001;Moody, 2001;Mayer and Puller, 2008;Quillan and Campbell, 2003;Mouw and Entwisle, 2006;Wimmer and Lewis, 2010;Zeng and Xie, 2008).…”
Section: Choice: Unconstrained Preference Versus Structural Constraintmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As in the old adage, "birds of a feather flock together," it has long been noted that friends tend to be similar to each other (for a review, see McPherson et al, [2001]). In past studies, preference based on homophilic group identity has been conceptualized as "in-group preference" (Blau, 1977), "similarity effects" (Hallinan and Williams, 1989), "net friendship segregation" (Moody, 2001), "assortative mixing" (Goodreau et al, 2009), and "choice homophily" (Kossinets and Watts, 2009). Why, then, do people prefer to befriend those with the same social identity as their own?…”
Section: In-group Identity Preferencementioning
confidence: 99%