臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

個體在青少年成長階段，學校是其最常接觸的社會脈絡，在學校中與班級同學的同儕關係，對此階段的青少年來說非常重要。青少年友誼發展的過程中，性別一直扮演重要的角色（Leaper 1994）。傳統社會對男女應表現出的行為與態度之不同期待，可能使得男女在個人社會網絡的組成、密度與規模因此產生差異（熊瑞梅 2001）。女生傾向產生關係性地相互依賴的友誼結構，男生則傾向集體性地相互依賴的友誼結構。同時，隨著青春期生理與心理上的變化，青少年更強烈的透過探索自我的方式（Erikson, 1968; Kohlberg & Gilligan, 1971）來排除因這些變化所帶來的不安全感。青少年更渴望透過與同性別同儕的互動來了解自己。在此轉變過程中，個體不只對兩性開始好奇，同時也在探索自我的過去中去釐清有關性別差異的各種行為態度，更多思考在一個社會世界中成為女人或成為男人應有的樣式、行為與態度。而若社會脈絡的影響實際上是透過網絡中與個體互動的對象以及網絡結構的差異造成，那麼男女在同一個脈絡中的互動，就不只是男女合班的脈絡對性別角色態度造成影響。換句話說，在男女合班的脈絡中男女互動的網絡結構才可能是青少年在青春期階段，男女在同一個脈絡中互動的條件下，對於性別角色態度造成影響的可能因素。本研究透過地位特性理論與性別化信仰的假設，認為當性別這個地位特性在脈絡中成為顯著性的影響時，會強化傳統的性別角色態度，讓男女更依照性別角色表現出符合社會期待下男女應有的行為與態度。本研究使用中研院「臺灣青少年成長歷程研究」（Taiwan Youth Project，簡稱TYP）的調查資料作為研究對象。研究結果發現，在不同性別組成的班級脈絡中，男女合班的男生比男生班的男生有更傳統的性別角色態度，男女合班的女生比女生班的女生有更傳統的性別角色態度，顯示出男女合班的班級脈絡確實會因性別地位特性的顯著，更強化傳統性別角色態度的展現。而進一步進到網絡結構中去觀察，同樣在男女合班的班級中，當班級的性別隔離愈低，男女有愈多機會互動，則個體的性別角色態度愈傳統；同樣地，當個人網絡中性別異質性愈高，個體有愈高比例的異性朋友，則個體的性別角色態度愈傳統。這樣的結果發現，證實脈絡背後所存在的網絡結構所產生的可能影響。而單一性別的班級脈絡中，男生的網絡結構呈現集體中心性與階層性的特質，而女生的網絡結構則沒有。愈位於集體中心性核心結構位置的個體有較傳統的性別角色態度。在動態網絡的分析中，雖然網絡結構對性別角色態度變化的影響沒有顯著，但仍然可以發現不同的變化趨勢。性別隔離高的班級，性別角色態度平均相似性是正值，代表個體的性別角色態度會受到個體朋友平均的性別角色態度影響；但性別隔離低的班級卻是負值，代表個體的性別角色態度不受影響。這樣的結果，本研究認為是受到性別介入的影響，這也符合上述地位特性理論的假設，當男女更多機會互動時，不是消除差異使彼此愈來愈相似，反而透過更多互動，更強化了性別社會化的過程，表現出更符合傳統性別角色態度規範下的行為與態度。

During the life course of adolescents’ growing up, the school is the social context the most contacted by students and peer relationships among classmates at school are very important for adolescents. Gender always plays an important role for friendship development of adolescents（Leaper 1994）. Different behaviors and attitudes exhibited by men and women from different traditional social expectations can make the difference between men and women in their composition of individual social networks（Hsung 2001）. Girls tend to build relationally interdependent friendship structure and boys tend to build collectively interdependent friendship structure. At the same time, with the physical and mental changes of puberty, adolescents use the way that to explore themselves more to reduce the insecurity from the change（Erikson, 1968; Kohlberg & Gilligan, 1971）. Adolescents are eager to understand themselves through interacting with the same gender peers. During this transformation, the individuals not only begin to wonder about sex but also clarify all kinds of different behaviors and attitudes about gender, and think more about the pattern a woman or man should perform. If the effects of social context actually are caused by whom interacting with in the social networks of class and the difference of network structure, it is more important that the network structure of interacting with different gender actors is a plausible factor. In this study, we use the assumption of status characteristics theory and gender（status）beliefs. When the gender status is significant in the context, it will reinforce traditional gender role attitudes and makes boys and girls more consistent with the behaviors and attitudes that social expectations for a woman or man should perform. This study use the data from Taiwan Youth Project（TYP）of Academia Sinica. The result shows that boys in mixed-gender class have more traditional gender role attitudes than boys in single-gender（all-boys）class, and girls in mixed-gender class have more traditional gender role attitudes than girls in single-gender（all-girls）class. Further, we observe the network structures and discover in mixed-gender class that when the gender segregation in class is lower, individuals have more traditional gender role attitudes；when the gender diversity in ego network is higher, individuals also have more traditional gender role attitudes. The result shows the network structure of interacting with different gender actors matters. In single-gender class, male network structure exhibits collectively central and hierarchical characteristics but female network structure does not. Individuals in core structure position that have more traditional gender role attitudes. In dynamic network, although there is no significance between network structure and the change of gender role attitudes, we still can find different changing tendencies. The gender segregation in class is higher, and the average similarity in gender role attitudes is positive. It means that individual gender role attitudes will be affected by their friends. But the gender segregation in class is lower, and the average similarity in gender role attitudes is negative. We think the different results are because of gender intervention. The answers are consistent with the assumption of status characteristics theory. When boys and girls have more opportunities to interact with each other, their differences will not be reduced. On the contrary, they have more opportunities to interact that enhance gender socialization process, and showing more consistent with the norms of traditional gender role attitudes.

第一章、緒論 10
第二章、文獻探討 15
第一節 社會脈絡與社會規範 15
一、不同性別組成的社會脈絡 15
二、地位特性理論與性別化信仰 17
第二節 網絡結構與社會規範 20
一、 網絡結構對個體的影響 20
二、性別化的網絡結構與性別角色態度：單一性別的班級 23
三、性別隔離的網絡結構與性別角色態度：混合性別的班級 34
第三節 性別化友誼網絡與性別角色態度的動態變化 40
第三章、研究方法 45
第一節 研究架構與研究假設 45
第二節 資料來源 48
第三節 研究變項 49
第四節 分析模型 55
第四章、研究結果 63
第一節 不同性別組成的班級脈絡與性別角色態度 63
第二節 性別化的友誼網絡結構與性別角色態度 68
第三節 性別隔離的網絡結構與性別角色態度 75
第四節 性別化友誼網絡與性別角色態度的動態變化 84
第五章、結論與討論 90
第一節 結論 90
第二節 研究討論與限制 94
參考文獻 101

江佩玟（2011），〈聯合與隔離：社會資本對台灣夫妻家務分工的影響〉。政治大學社會學研究所學位論文。

黃文三（2006），《性別角色與教育》。台北市：群英。

陳皎眉（1999），〈青少年的壓力與適應〉。《Y世代與Z世代：青少年文化與秩序之探討》。救國團社會研究院出版。

張苙雲，2011，〈社會學實證研究中的脈絡效應〉。《傳播研究與實踐》，1(2)：49-55。

熊瑞梅，2001，〈都市事件行動體系的分析：以臺中市為例〉。《台大社會學刊》，29：59-110。

Alessandro Lomi, Dean Lusher, Philippa E. Pattison, Garry Robins. (2014). The Focused Organization of Advice Relations: A Study in Boundary Crossing. Organization Science 25, 438-457.

Baerveldt, C., van Duijn, M.A.J., Vermeij, L. and van Hemert, D.A. (2004). Ethnic Boundaries and Personal Choice: Assessing the Influence of Individual Inclinations to Choose Intra-Ethnic Relationships on Pupils' Networks. Social Networks 26, 55-74.

Barsky, N. P. (1999). A Core/Periphery Structure in a Corporate Budgeting Process. Connections 22(2), 22-29.
Beck, R. J., Fitzgerald, W. J. and Pauksztat, B. (2003). Individual Behaviors and Social Structure in the Development of Communication Networks of Self-Organizing Online Discussion Groups. In Wasson, B., Ludvigson, S., Hoppe, U. (Eds.), Designing for Change in Networked Learning Environments, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Berger, J. , B. P. Cohen , M. Zelditch, Jr. (1966). Status characteristics and expectation states. In J. Berger , M. Zelditch, Jr. , & Bo Anderson (eds.), Pp. 29-46. Sociological theories in progress. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.

Berger, J., & Fisek, M. H. (1974) A generalization of the status characteristics and expectation states theory. In J. Berger, T. L. Conner, & M. H. Fisek. (eds). Expectation states theory: A theoretical rese arch program. Cambridge, MA: Winthrop Publishing.

Borgatti, S. P., & Everett, M. G. (1999). Models of core/periphery structures. Social
Networks 21(4), 375-395.

Bearman, P.S. & Moody, J. (2004). Suicide and friendships among American adolescents. American Journal of Public Health 94, 89-95.

Baumgarte, R. and Nelson, D. W. (2009). Preference for Same- Versus Cross-Sex Friendships. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 39: 901–917.

Berger, J. M., Hamit Fisek, Robert Z. Norman, & Zelditch, M. Jr..(1977). Status Characteristics and Social Interaction: An Expectation States Approach. New York: Elsevier Press.

Berger, J. M., Rosenholtz, S. J., & Zelditch, M. Jr. (1980). Status organizing processes. Annual Review of Sociology 6, 479–508.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Blau, P. M. (1977). Inequality and Heterogeneity: A Primitive Theory of Social Structure. The Free Press, New York.

Bott, E. (1957). Family and Social Network: Roles, Norms, and External Relationships in Ordinary Urban Families. London: Tavistock.

Branje, S. J. T., Frijns, T., Finkenauer, C., Engels, R., & Meeus, W. (2007). You are my best friend: Commitment and stability in adolescents’ same-sex friendships. Personal Relationships 14, 587–603.

Brashears, M.E. (2008). Sex, society, and association: a cross-national examination of status construction theory. Social Psychology Quarterly 71: 72–85.

Broverman, I. K., Vogel, S. R., Broverman, D. M., Clarkson, F. E., & Rosenkrantz, P. S. (1972). Sex-Role stereotypes: A current appraisal. Journal of Social Issues 28(2), 59-78.

Buhrke, R. A.,& Fuqua, D. R.(1987). Sex differences in same- and cross-sex supportive friendships. Sex Roles 17, 339–352.
Burt, Ronald S. (1992). Structural holes: the social structure of competition. Harvard University Press. ISBN 978-0-674-84371-4.

Burt, R.S. (1998). The network structure of social capital. Paper given at Social Networks and Social Capital conference at Duke University. Manuscript available on the internet at http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/ronald.burt/research.

Casper, D. M., & Card, N. A. (2010). “We were best friends, but...”: Antipathetic relationships emerging from broken friendships. Journal of Adolescent Research 25(4), 499-526.

Clark, M.L. and Ayers, M. (1992). Friendship Similarity during Early Adolescence: Gender and Racial Patterns. Journal of Psychology 126(4), 393—405.
Coleman, J. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. The American Journal of Sociology 94(Supplement): S95-S120.

Cook, T. D., Deng, Y., & Morgano, E. (2007). Friendship Influences During Early Adolescence: The Special Role of Friends' Grade Point Average. Journal of Research on Adolescence 17(2), 325-356.

Correll, Shelley J. (2004). Constraints into Preferences: Gender, Status and Emerging Career Aspirations. American Sociological Review 69: 93-113.


Cummings, J. N. and Cross, R., (2003). Structural Properties of Work Groups and Their Consequences for Performance. Social Networks 25(3), 197-210.

Currarini, S., Jackson, M. O., & Pin, P. (2010). Identifying the Roles of Race-Based Choice and Chance in High School Friendship Network Formation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 107(11), 4857-4861.

David, D. S., & Brannon, R.(1976). The forty-nine percent majority: The male sex role. MA: Addison-Wesley.

Deaux, K., &Major, B.(1987). Putting gender into context: An interactive model of gender-related behavior. Psychological Review, 94, 369–389.

Deaux, K., & Major, B. (1998). Gender behavior in a social context a social-psychological model of gender. In D. L. Anselmi & A. L. Law (Eds.), Questions of gender, perspectives and paradoxes(pp. 367–376). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Drury, K., Bukowski, W. M., Velasquez, A. M., & Stella-Lopez, L.(2013). Victimization and gender identity in single-sex and mixed-sex schools: Examining contextual variations in pressure to conform to gender norms. Sex Roles, 69(7) 442-454.

Eagly, A. H., Wood, W., & Diekman, A. B. (2000). Social role theory of sex differences and similarities: A current appraisal. In T. Eckes & H. M. Trautner (Eds.), The developmental social psychology of gender (pp. 123-174). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Echenique, Federico, and Roland G. Fryer, Jr. (2007). A Measure of Segregation Based on Social Interactions. Quarterly Journal of Economics 122(2), 441–485.

Eder, D., & Hallinan, M. T. (1978). Sex differences in children’s friendships. American Sociological Review 43, 237–250.

Erikson, E.(1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.

Erickson, B. H. (1988). The relational basis of attitudes. In B. Wellman & S. D. Berkowitz (Eds.), Social structures. A network approach (pp. 99-121). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Eshel, Y., & Kurman, J. (1990). Ethnic Equity and Asymmetry in Peer Acceptance. Journal of Social Psychology 130(6), 713-723.

Fehr, B. (2000). The life cycle of friendship. In C. Hendrick & S.S. Hendrick (Eds.), Close relationships: A sourcebook (pp. 71-82). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Feiring, C.(1999). Gender identity and the development of romantic relationships in adolescence. In W. Furman, B.B. Brown, & C. Feiring (Eds.), The development of romantic relationships in adolescence (pp. 211–232). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Feld, L. S. (1981). The focused organization of social ties. American Journal of Sociology 86: 1015-1035.

Feld, L. S. (1982). Social structural determinants of similarity among associates. American Sociological Review 47(6), 797-801.

Feshbach, N., & Sones, G. (1971). Sex differences in adolescent reactions toward new-comers. Developmental Psychology 4: 381–386.

Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison process. Human Relations 7(2), 117-140.

Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Fischer, C. S., Jackson, R. M., Stueve, C. A., Gerson, K., & Jones, L. M. (1977). Networks and places: Social relations in the urban setting. New York: Free Press.

Fitzpatrick, M. A., Mulac, A., & Dindia, K.(1995). Gender preferential language use in spouse and stranger interaction. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 14, 18–39.

Fogel, J., & Nehmad, E. (2009). Internet social network communities: Risk taking, trust, and privacy concerns. Computers in Human Behaviour 25(1), 153-160.

Fox, M., Gibbs, M., & Auerbach, D. (1985). Age and gender dimensions of friendship. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 9 489–502.

Frank, O., Strauss, D., (1986). Markov graphs. Journal of the American Statistical Association 81 832–842.

Freeman, L.C. (1979). Centrality in networks: I. Conceptual clarification. Social Networks 1, 215–239.

Freeman, Linton C. (2004). The Development of Social Network Analysis: A Study in the Sociology of Science. Vancouver, BC: Empirical Press.

Gondal, Neha and Paul D. McLean. (2013). What Makes a Network Go Round? Exploring the Structure of a Strong Component with Exponential Random Graph Models. Social Networks 35, 4: 499-513.

Goodreau, S. M., Kitts, J. A., & Morris, M. (2009). Birds of a Feather, or Friend of a Friend? Using Exponential Random Graph Models to Investigate. Adolescent Social Networks. Demography 46, 103-125.

Gould, Roger. (2002). The Origins of Status Hierarchies: A Formal Theory and Empirical Test. American Journal of Sociology 107, 1143-78.

Grannis, R. (2009). Paths and semi-paths: re-conceptualizing structural cohesion in terms of directed relations. Sociological Methodology 39(1), 117–150.

Haas Steven A, and Schaefer David R. (2014). With a little help from my friends? Asymmetrical social influence on adolescent smoking initiation and cessation. Journal of Health and Social Behavior 55, 126–43.
Hall, J. A. (2010). Sex differences in friendship expectations: A meta-analysis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 28, 723–747.

Hallinan, M. T., & Teixeira, R. B. (1987). Opportunities and constraints: Black-White differences in the formation of interracial friendships. Child Development 58, 1358-1371.

Halpern, D. F., Eliot, L., Bigler, R. S., Fabes, R. A., Hanish, L. D., Hyde, J. S., Liben, L., & Martin, C. L. (2011). The pseudoscience of single-sex schooling. Science 333, 1706-1707.

Harris, J. R.(1995). Where is the child's environment? A group socialization theory of development. Psychological Review 102, 458-489.

Harter, S.(1999). The construction of the self: A developmental perspective. New York: Guilford.

Harter, S.(2006). The self. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3, Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 505–570). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Hartley, R. E.(1959). Sex role pressures and the socialization of the male child. Psychological Reports 5, 457-468.

Heider, F. (1946). Attitudes and cognitive organization. Journal of Psychology 21, 107-112.
Holland, Paul W., and Samuel Leinhardt. (1970). A Method for Detecting Structure
in Sociometric Data. American Journal of Sociology 76, 492–513.

Homans, G. C. (1974). Social behavior: Its elementary forms (2nd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Hussong, A. M. (2000). Distinguishing mean and structural sex differences in adolescent friendship quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 17, 223–243.

Hyde, J.(2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592.

Ibarra, H. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly 37: 422–447.

Johnson, C., Clay-Warner, J., & Funk, S. J.(1996). Effects of authority structures and gender on interaction in same-sex task groups. Social Psychology Quarterly 59, 221–236.

Johnson, H. D. (2004). Gender, grade and relationship differences in emotional closeness within adolescent friendships. Adolescence 39, 243–255.

Kalmijn, M., & Flap, H. (2001). Assortative meeting and mating: Unintended consequences of organized settings for partner choices. Social Forces 79, 1289-1313.
Kassenberg, A. (2002). Wat scholieren bindt: Sociale gemeenschap in scholen [What binds pupils? Social communities in schools]. University of Groningen, Groningen.

Knecht, A. (2008). Friendship selection and friends’ influence: Dynamics of networks and actor attributes in early adolescence. Doctoral dissertation.

Kohlberg, L., & Gilligan, C.(1971). The adolescent as philosopher: The discovery of self in a postconventional world. Daedalus, 100, 1051–1086.

Kuhn, D., & Udell, W.(2001). Thinking. In R. M. Lerner & J. V. Lerner (Eds.), Adolescence in America: An Encyclopedia (pp. 762–766). Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO.

Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Merton, R. K. (1954). Friendship as a social process: A substantive and methodological analysis. In M. Berger (Ed.), Freedom and control in modern society. New York: Van Nostrand.

Leaper, C. (1994). Exploring the consequences of gender segregation on social relationships. In C. Leaper (Ed.), Childhood gender segregation: Causes and consequences (New Directions for Child Development, No. 65). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Leaper, C., & Friedman, C.K.(2007). The socialization of gender. In J. Grusec & P. Hastings(Eds.), Handbook of socialization: Theory and research(pp. 561-587), New York: Guilford.

Leenders, R. T. A. J. (1995). Structure and influence. Statistical models for the dynamics of actor attributes, network structure and their interdependence. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.

Lewis, K., Kaufman, J., Gonzalez, M., Wimmer, A., & Christakis, N. (2008). Tastes, ties, and time: a new social network dataset using Facebook.com. Social Networks 30: 330–342.

Lindenberg, S. (1990). Homo socio-oeconomicus: The emergence of a general model of man in the social sciences. Journal of institutional and theoretical economics 146(4), 727-748.

Lubbers, M. J. (2003). Group composition and network structure in school classes: A multilevel application of the p* model. Social Networks 25(4), 309-332.

Lusher, D., Koskinen, J., & Robins, G. (2013). Exponential random graph models for social networks: Theory, methods and applications. Cambridge University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. (1990). Gender and relationships: A developmental account. American Psychologist 45, 513-520.

Maccoby E. E. & Jacklin C. N. (1974). The Psychology of Sex Differences. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Maccoby, E. E. (1994). Middle childhood in the context of the family. In W.A. Collins (Ed.), Development During Middle Childhood: The Years from Six to Twelve (pp. 184-239). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Maddux, W. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2005). Gender Differences in the Relational and Collective Bases for Trust. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 8(2), 159-171.

Manski, C. F. (1993). Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies 60, 531-542.

Manski, C. F. (1995). Identification problems in the social sciences. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Martin CL.(1989). Children’s use of gender-related information in making social judgments. Developmental Psychology 25, 80-88.

McPherson, J. M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1987). Homophily in voluntary associations: Status distance and the composition of face to face groups. American Sociological Review 52: 370-379.

McPherson, M., Smith-Lovin, L., & Cook, J. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology 27, 415-444.

Meeker, B. F. & Weitzel-O'Neill, P. A. (1977). Sex roles and interpersonal behavior in task-oriented groups. American Sociological Review 42, 91–105.

Mehta, C.M.(2015). Gender in Context: Considering Variability in Wood and Eagly’s Traditions of Gender Identity. Sex Roles, 73, 490-496.
Mercken, L., Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & De Vries, H. (2009). Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior: Social network analyses in six European countries. Social Science and Medicine 69, 1506–1514.

Moody, James. (2001). Race, School Integration, and Friendship Segregation in America. American Journal of Sociology 107(3), 679:716.

Moore G. (1990). Structural determinants of men’s and women’s personal networks. American Sociological Review 55: 726–735.

Moskowitz, D. S.(1993). Dominance and friendliness: On the interaction of gender and situation. Journal of Personality 61, 387–409.

Mouw, T., & Entwisle, B. (2006). Residential Segregation and Interracial Friendship in Schools. American Journal of Sociology 112(2), 394-441.

Munch, A.J., McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (1997). Gender, children, and social contact: the effects of childrearing for men and women. American Sociological Review 62: 509–520.

Ormel, J., & Lindenberg, S. (1999). Subjective well being and social production functions. Social Indicators Research 46, 61-90.

O’Sullivan, L. F., Graber, J. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J.(2001). Adolescent gender development. In J. Worell (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Women and Gender (pp. 55–67). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Muuss, R. E.(1995). Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological perspective of human development. In Rolf Eduard Helmut Muuss, Eli Velder, & Harriet Porton(Eds.), Theories of adolescence (6th ed., pp. 312–338). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Pugh, Meredith & Wahrman, Ralph (1978). Neutralizing sexism in mixed-sex groups: Do women have to be better than men? Presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, San Francisco.

Putnam, R. D. (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The American Prospect 13, 35–42.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.

Rank, C., Rank, O. and Wald, A. (2006). Integrated Versus Core-Periphery Structures in Regional Biotechnology Networks. European Management Journal 24(1), 73-85.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L.(2000). The Formation of Status Beliefs: Improving Status Construction Theory. In E. J. Lawler, M. Macy, S. R. Thye, & H. A. Walker(Eds.), Advances in Group Processes Vol. 17(pp. 77-102). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Ridgeway, Cecilia L. & Shelley J. Correll (2004). Unpacking the gender system: A theoretical perspective on cultural beliefs in social relations. Gender & Society 18(4), 510-531.

Robins, G., Elliott, P., Pattison, P. (2001). Network models for social selection processes. Social Networks 23 1–30.
Robins, G., Pattison, P., Kalish, Y., & Lusher, D. (2007a). An introduction to exponential random graph (p*) models for social networks. Social Networks 29 (2), 173–191.

Robins, G., Snijders T., Peng Wang, Handcock M., Pattison, P. (2007b). Recent developments in exponential random graph(p*) models for social networks. Social Networks 29(2), 192–215.

Robins, G., Pattison, P., & Peng Wang (2009). Closure, connectivity and degree distributions: exponential random graph (p*) models for directed social networks. Social Networks 31(2), 105-117.

Robnett, R. D., & Leaper, C. (2013). Friendship groups, personal motivation, and gender in relation to high school students’ STEM career interest. Journal of Research on Adolescence 23(4), 652–664.

Rubin, L. B. (1985). Just friends: The role of friendship in our lives. New York: Harper & Row.

Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, & Felton Earls. (1997). Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: a Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy. Science 277(5328): 918-924.

Smith, Sanne, Ineke Maas and Frank van Tubergen. (2014). Ethnic ingroup friendships in schools: testing the by-product hypothesis in England, Germany, the Netherlands and Sweden. Social Networks 39, 33-45.
Snijders, T.A.B. (1996). Stochastic actor-oriented dynamic network analysis. Journal of Mathematical Sociology 21, 149–172.

Snijders, T. A. B. (2001). The statistical evaluation of social network dynamics. In B. M. (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 361-395). Boston and London: Basil Blackwell.

Snijders, Tom A.B. (2002). Markov Chain Monte Carlo Estimation of Exponential Random Graph Models. Journal of Social Structure 3(2).

Snijders, T. A. B. (2005). Models for Longitudinal Network Data. In P. Carrington, J. Scott, & S. Wasserman (Eds.), Models and methods in social network analysis(Chapter 11). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Snijders, T. A. B. (2006). Statistical Methods for Network Dynamics. In: S.R. Luchini et al. (eds.), Proceedings of the XLIII Scientific Meeting, Italian Statistical Society ( pp. 281-296). Padova: CLEUP.

Snijders, T.A.B., Pattison, P., Robins, G.L., Handcock, M., 2006. New specifications for exponential random graph models. Sociological Methodology.

Snijders, T. A. B., Steglich, C. E. G., & van de Bunt, G. G. (2010). Introduction to actor-based models for network dynamics. Social Networks 32: 44-60.

Son, Joonmo and Nan Lin (2008). Social Capital and Civic Action: A Network-based Approach. Social Science Research 37, 330-349.
Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L.(1979). Comparison of masculine and feminine personality attributes and sex-role attitudes across age groups. Developmental Psychology 15, 583-584.

Steglich, C. E. G., Snijders, T. A. B., & Pearson, M. (2010). Dynamic networks and behavior: Separating selection from influence. Sociological Methodology 40, 329–393.

Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In J. A. Williams & S. Worchel(Eds.), The social psychology of inter-group relations(pp. 33-47). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Thibaut, J. W., & Kelley, H. H. (1959). The social psychology of groups. New York: Wiley.

Wang, P., Robins, G., Pattison, P. (2006). Pnet: A Program for the Simulation and Estimation of Exponential Random Graph Models. University of Melbourne.

Wallerstein, I. (1974). The Modern World-System: Capitalist Agriculture and the Origins of the European World-Economy in the Sixteenth Century. New York: Academic Press.

Wasserman, S. & Pattison, P. (1996). Logit models and logistic regressions for social networks. I: An introduction to Markov graphs and p*. Psychometrika 60, 401 –425.


Wentzel, K. R. (2009). Peers and academic functioning at school. In K. H. Rubin, W. M. Bukowski, & B. Laursen (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships and groups (pp. 531–548). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

White, H. C., Boorman, S. A., & Breiger, R. L. (1976). Social structure from multiple networks. I. blockmodels of roles and positions. American Journal of Sociology 81(4), 730-780.

Vaquera, Elizabeth, & Grace Kao (2008). Do You Like Me as Much as I Like You? Friendship Reciprocity and Its Effects on School Outcomes among Adolescents. Social Science Research 37: 55-72.

Vermeij, L., Van Duijn, M. A. J., & Baerveldt, C. (2009). Ethnic Segregation in Context: Social Discrimination among Native Dutch Pupils and Their Ethnic Minority Classmates. Social Networks 31(4), 230-239.

Young Jacob TN. (2011). How do they “end up together”? A social network analysis of self-control, homophily, and adolescent relationships. Journal of Quantitative Criminology 27, 251–73.

Zeng, Z., & Xie, Y. (2008). A Preference-Opportunity-Choice Framework with Applications to Intergroup Friendship. American Journal of Sociology 114(3), 615-648.

Zong-Rong Lee, Chyi-In Wu, & Yu-Ting Huang (2013). Exploring the Antecedents and Effects of Structural Holes in Teenagers’ Friendship Networks. In Chin-Chun Yi(Eds.), The Psychological Well-being of East Asian Youth(pp. 109-130), Dordrecht: Springer Publishing co..