American Sociological Review
2015, Vol. 80(2) 329 –358
© American Sociological
Association 2015
DOI: 10.1177/0003122414568788
http://asr.sagepub.com
Social capital has been an important concept
and an explanatory variable for a number of
issues in the social sciences. Particularly in
economic sociology and organization studies,
a burgeoning literature explains a wide range
of outcomes using this concept (for an over-
view, see Adler and Kwon 2002; Castilla,
Lan, and Rissing 2013a, 2013b; Payne et al.
2011; Phelps, Heidl, and Wadhwa 2012). A
central finding is that social capital has a
functional dimension for labor markets: it
reduces information and search costs, matches
supply with demand, and positively affects
568788ASRXXX10.1177/0003122414568788American Sociological ReviewLutter
2015
a
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies
Corresponding Author:
Mark Lutter, Max Planck Institute for the Study
of Societies, Paulstr. 3, 50676 Cologne, Germany
E-mail: lutter@mpifg.de
Do Women Suffer from
Network Closure? The
Moderating Effect of Social
Capital on Gender Inequality
in a Project-Based Labor
Market, 1929 to 2010
Mark Lutter
a
Abstract
That social capital matters is an established fact in the social sciences. Less clear, however,
is how different forms of social capital affect gender disadvantages in career advancement.
Focusing on a project-based type of labor market, namely the U.S. film industry, this study
argues that women suffer a “closure penalty” and face severe career disadvantages when
collaborating in cohesive teams. At the same time, gender disadvantages are reduced for
women who build social capital in open networks with higher degrees of diversity and
information flow. Using large-scale longitudinal data on career profiles of about one million
performances by 97,657 film actors in 369,099 film productions between the years 1929 and
2010, I analyze career survival models and interaction effects between gender and different
measures of social capital and information openness. Findings reveal that female actors have a
higher risk of career failure than do their male colleagues when affiliated in cohesive networks,
but women have better survival chances when embedded in open, diverse structures. This
study contributes to the understanding of how and what type of social capital can be either
a beneficial resource for otherwise disadvantaged groups or a constraining mechanism that
intensifies gender differences in career advancement.
Keywords
social capital, social networks, gender inequality, film, project-based labor markets, closure
penalty, diversity
at Max Planck Society on May 2, 2016asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
MPIfG Journal Article
Mark Lutter: Do Women Suffer from Network Closure? The Moderating Effect of Social Capital on Gender Inequality in a
Project-based Labor Market, 1929 to 2010. In: American Sociological Review 80(2), 329-358 (2015). Sage Publications
The original publication is available at the publisher’s web site: http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0003122414568788
The MPIfG Journal Articles series features articles by MPIfG researchers and visiting scholars published in peer-reviewed journals.
Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies (MPIfG) Cologne | www.mpifg.de
330 American Sociological Review 80(2)
individual career advancement. Specifically,
it helps in acquiring new jobs, establishing
future collaborations, and creating teams
(Gabbay and Zuckerman 1998; Godechot and
Mariot 2004; Granovetter 1995; Podolny and
Baron 1997). Social capital facilitates the
sharing and transfer of knowledge within
teams and among co-workers (Inkpen and
Tsang 2005; Reagans and McEvily 2003;
Tortoriello, Reagans, and McEvily 2012;
Wei, Zheng, and Zhang 2011), hastens the
diffusion and creation of innovations (Obst-
feld 2005; Rost 2011; Tsai and Ghoshal
1998), and enhances the productivity of teams
and firms (Fernandez, Castilla, and Moore
2000; Reagans and Zuckerman 2001). More-
over, social capital affects team success and
performance even in highly competitive, cre-
ative, and uncertain environments, such as
careers in arts, video game production, musi-
cals, professional soccer, and film production
(Accominotti 2009; Becker 1982; de Vaan,
Vedres, and Stark 2011, forthcoming; Ferri-
ani, Cattani, and Baden-Fuller 2009; Giuffre
1999, 2010; Grund 2012; Lutter 2014; Uzzi
and Spiro 2005; White 1993).
Especially in project-based labor markets
such as film, where recruitment depends on
interpersonal networks (Bielby and Bielby
1999; Blair 2009; Cattani and Ferriani 2008;
Faulkner 1983; Faulkner and Anderson 1987;
Jones 1996), social capital is highly important
for getting jobs and structuring the market.
While much of the literature on social capital
highlights its positive and functional aspects,
there is a dysfunctional, “dark” side (Gargiulo
and Benassi 1999): social exclusion. If
recruitment is to a great extent a result of
interpersonal networks, there is a tendency to
exclude and discriminate actors based on
ascriptive characteristics, regardless of talent
(Bourdieu 1984; DiMaggio and Garip 2012;
Lin 1999, 2001). Qualitative research sug-
gests that women in particular suffer from
labor markets structured by informal recruit-
ment practices (Christopherson 2009; Grugu-
lis and Stoyanova 2012).
However, research has still not systemati-
cally investigated whether and how social
capital and network structures affect women’s
chances to advance their careers. The persis-
tence of gender inequalities in project-based
labor markets is a well-studied fact (Bielby
and Bielby 1992, 1996; Lincoln and Allen
2004), but it is less clear how different forms
of social capital affect existing gender disad-
vantages. So far, insight has come from
knowledge generated from case-study
research (Grugulis and Stoyanova 2012), but
quantitative accounts examining how expo-
sure to different types of network structures
affects gender disadvantages in career
advancement are rare. For instance, Petersen,
Saporta, and Seidel (2000) review the empiri-
cal literature on networks and gender segre-
gation and conclude that systematic
knowledge is still very limited. They quote
Granovetter, who notes in his review that this
research gap is precisely the one “most in
need of filling” (Granovetter 1995:177).
The few existing studies that deal explic-
itly with the differential returns of social capi-
tal on careers for men and women are mixed
and inconclusive in their findings. For
instance, Burt (1998:16) argues that women
“do better with a small network of intercon-
nected contacts” and do not profit from bro-
kerage per se (as men do), but that women
can benefit indirectly from brokerage through
strong ties to established sponsors. Others,
however, argue that women’s close circles are
detrimental for their careers. Women’s
gender-homophilous ties (i.e., exchange
occurs mainly through ties with the same sex)
create stronger disadvantages because they
tend to be lower in status and consist of fewer
connections to important sponsors (Groys-
berg 2010; Ibarra 1992; McPherson, Smith-
Lovin, and Cook 2001).
In addition, prior studies almost exclu-
sively rely on cross-sectional data, and it is
less clear if differences in returns on social
capital are the cause or the effect of disadvan-
taged positions and career outcomes. As
Mouw (2006) suggests, studies should rely on
longitudinal data that take whole career pat-
terns into account to perform stricter tests on
the causality of possible network effects.
at Max Planck Society on May 2, 2016asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Lutter 331
Consequently, as a recent review argues, “to
truly understand the causes, realities, and
implications of gender differences in social
networks, we must study them dynamically
and longitudinally” (Cabrera and Thomas-
Hunt 2007:7).
This article attempts to fill this gap. Build-
ing on prior research, I propose that gender
inequality is particularly striking when
women are exposed to cohesive project teams
during their careers, whereas gender inequal-
ity is less severe when they are involved in
weaker, more diverse network structures.
This is because information flow in cohesive
networks is likely to be redundant and
gender-homophilous, which creates stronger
disadvantages for women compared to men,
because women’s close information networks
are lower in status and consist of fewer ties to
important (mostly male) sponsors. In diverse net-
works, however, information is non-redundant,
non-exclusive, and beneficial especially to
women, because women face fewer network
constraints and can more strategically exploit
external, weak tie relationships.
Using a unique panel dataset that includes
full career profiles of more than one million
performances by 97,657 film actors in the
U.S. film industry and advanced measures of
cohesion, familiarity, and different aspects of
diversity, this study sheds light on the long-
discussed but never quantitatively analyzed
idea that women are more likely to suffer
career penalties from network closure. By
analyzing interaction effects between gender
and measures of cohesion, social capital, and
information diversity, I find that, controlling
for human capital and other success-related
factors, women who are affiliated with cohe-
sive networks during their careers face sig-
nificant disadvantages. In contrast, gender
disadvantages are reduced substantially in
careers that feature collaborations with less
cohesive relations, weaker ties, and greater
information diversity. I find that if women
engage in teams with greater diversity, they
can reduce their risk of career failure to a
level indistinguishable from that of men.
Gender differences are then fully negated.
SOCIAL CAPITAL AND
GENDER: THEORY AND
HYPOTHESES
The number and quality of relationships—
such as colleagues or collaborations, friends
or family—can be subsumed under the notion
of social capital if this social structure in any
way forms an asset or resource (Burt 1992).
The strength of personal ties is usually con-
ceptualized by the amount or frequency of
contact, emotional affection, reciprocal
behavior, or trustworthiness (Granovetter
1973). Network structures can create social
capital in different ways, either through
strong, dense, and cohesive ties—network
closure (Coleman 1988)—or through “net-
work betweenness” (Freeman 1977), that is,
networks in which weakly connected ties act
as brokers between different core groups
(Burt 2000).
The classical approach comes from Cole-
man (1988) and highlights the assumption
that network closure forms a beneficiary
resource of social capital. According to Cole-
man, actors with frequent relationships are
more likely to develop trust, conjoint identifi-
cation, and shared norms, which in turn lead
to reciprocal, cooperative, and pro-social
behavior. In cohesive networks where actors
interact repeatedly, the incentive to cooperate
is relatively high, because cooperation
enhances a person’s chances to receive help
the next time it is needed. Any favor an actor
receives from a colleague imposes an obliga-
tion to reciprocate in the future. As a conse-
quence, actors in frequent relationships invest
more in social capital, because they can
expect a higher return from this investment,
as opposed to actors in weaker relationships
or one-shot interactions.
While trust and information exchange are
enhanced within cohesive networks, informa-
tion on how to get jobs or other career-
relevant information tends to be redundant,
because it resonates within the same set of
people, who potentially share similar back-
grounds (Burt 1992; Granovetter 1995; Rea-
gans and Zuckerman 2001). Moreover,
at Max Planck Society on May 2, 2016asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
332 American Sociological Review 80(2)
cohesive networks might foster discrimina-
tion and exclusion, as network closure is
likely to divide actors into insiders and out-
siders (Lin 1999; Portes 1998). According to
Bourdieu (1984), members of a social group
develop a specific habitus, which is social-
ized, shared, and maintained, often uncon-
sciously. The habitus imparts the “feel for the
game” (Blair 2009:121), attaches members to
the group, and makes membership visible. It
creates distinctive features that signal belong-
ing or exclusion, and restricts outsiders from
gaining access to the group or from receiving
important information.
The second approach on social capital
assumes that actors in weak or loosely con-
nected networks benefit from social capital.
Referring to the famous “strength of weak
ties” theorem (Granovetter 1973), weak ties
are exposed to a broader range of diverse
communities because they bridge what Burt
(1992) calls “structural holes”—insular
groups of cohesive and distant networks.
Actors who maintain weak ties can benefit
from a brokerage position, because they con-
nect otherwise separated groups and tend to
control the information flowing between
them. Most important, the position equips the
broker with access to different sorts of peo-
ple, communities, and cultures. Therefore,
weak tie networks offer a much broader infor-
mation variety, which is advantageous in
building and making use of social capital.
1
With regard to gender inequality, women
are in danger of being disadvantaged by cohe-
sive networks, but they can profit from open,
weaker, and more diverse network structures.
Prior research suggests two mechanisms that
explain why women are potentially disadvan-
taged when they work in cohesive networks.
First, women’s gender-homophilous networks
(i.e., their identity networks to other women)
tend to be negatively associated with posi-
tional power, whereas men’s homophilous
networks are positively associated to power
and authority and are larger in absolute num-
bers (Brass 1985; Ibarra 1992, 1993). Men
are therefore more effective in creating
career-relevant, “hard” social capital (van
Emmerik 2006). For instance, they are more
likely to take up leadership positions within
informally occurring, close entrepreneurial
groups (Yang and Aldrich 2014).
Gender-segregated informal, personal net-
works seem to be reflected in segregated
workgroups (Fernandez and Sosa 2005).
Research finds that job-seekers in white/male
networks receive more relevant job informa-
tion than do those in minority/female net-
works, because of the white/male networks’
higher-status contacts (McDonald 2011;
Petersen et al. 2000; Stainback 2008). In
addition, women with children might be at a
particular disadvantage, because they tend to
have fewer work-related ties, or less time to
invest in building beneficial strong ties
(Munch, McPherson, and Smith-Lovin 1997).
As a consequence, women tend to be concen-
trated in “pink collar” jobs (Burt 1998:19),
where they find fewer career opportunities
and meager returns on their network resources
(Bielby and Baron 1986).
Second, women’s careers tend to suffer
from poor mentorship. Burt (1998) shows that
women need to “borrow” social capital with
the help of a powerful mentor, and if they do,
the effects are strong. Groysberg (2010),
however, points out that most women have
difficulty finding sponsors, have generally
fewer sponsors than men, or receive less sup-
port from their (mostly male) sponsors. Lin
(2001), in addition, argues that disadvantaged
labor market groups (such as women) receive
fewer benefits from high-status ties simply
because they lack the experience to appropri-
ately mobilize beneficial social capital. This
is supported by McGuire (2002), who finds
that women face disadvantages even when
they have ties to powerful employees.
Applied to careers in film, these mecha-
nisms might be especially dominant because
the main decision-makers—the producers,
directors, and stars in leading roles—are 80 to
90 percent male (Bielby and Bielby 1996;
Christopherson 2009; Levy 1989). Hence,
cohesive network structures within a team are
likely to cause gender- and status-biased
information flow in which women receive
lesser quality information. Men in cohesive
circles also suffer from information
at Max Planck Society on May 2, 2016asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Lutter 333
redundancy, but men do better than women
because their identity networks tend to con-
sist of more ties to positions of higher status.
Taken together, gender-homophilous
information flow, low-status identity net-
works, poor returns on mentorship, and, as a
consequence, redundant and narrow informa-
tion on future possible projects can result in
cumulative disadvantages for women build-
ing their careers in cohesive networks. Par-
ticularly in project-based labor markets,
initial differences in success likely trigger
future success (DiPrete and Eirich 2006;
Faulkner and Anderson 1987; Rossman,
Esparza, and Bonacich 2010). Therefore,
exclusion from access to important informa-
tion burdens those who already face informa-
tion penalties, giving rise to the accumulation
of disadvantages over the course of a career
(Fernandez-Mateo 2009).
Hypothesis 1: If women are more often attached
to cohesive teams during their careers, their
chances for career survival decrease relative
to men’s career survival chances.
While women might suffer from exclusion
and information penalties in cohesive net-
works, they can take advantage of weaker and
more diverse networks. This is supported by
three insights from the sociology of social
capital. First, Burt (1997) argues that the ben-
efits of brokerage through weak ties—
although beneficial in general—increase if
actors are less constrained and have less
legitimacy. Women benefit more from diver-
sity precisely because they are less embedded
in job-relevant cohesive circles (i.e., fewer
mentors and less powerful identity networks).
Facing fewer network constraints, women are
free to exploit and take advantage of diver-
sity. This view is supported by Ibarra
(1997:93), who argues that “women may
respond to the limited availability of homo-
philous contacts by reaching beyond their
immediate work groups.” Consequently, she
concludes, “broad-ranging networks . . . offer
greater benefits to women than to men by
linking them to peer and senior women in
other subunits.” In the same way, Lin (2001)
argues that diversion of ties is a better strat-
egy for disadvantaged groups (see also Son
and Lin 2012), because diversity makes them
less dependent on a few (mostly male) decision-
makers who decide whether they are to be
included in the in-group.
Second, Podolny (2001) suggests that the
benefits of brokerage increase with high ego-
centric uncertainty. Women face higher mar-
ket uncertainties due to their higher drop-out
rates. Hence, while men benefit from internal
sponsors and gender-homophilous, high-
status identity networks, women must rely on
external and diverse network ties to survive
(Ibarra 1993). Accordingly, Groysberg (2010)
argues that women profit from external ties
because they are much more cautious, strate-
gic, and selective than men when making
choices on future projects. Indeed, Ibarra
(1997) shows empirically that network diver-
sity pays off for women: women with high
potential in career advancement have wider-
ranging information networks than do their
male counterparts.
Finally, as Burt (2004) shows, network
diversity enhances not only the generation of
good ideas, but also how performance is
evaluated by others. This is especially benefi-
cial to women, as it increases their visibility
and reduces opportunities for discrimination
(Petersen and Saporta 2004). Accordingly,
research on valuation finds that creative
actors at the periphery receive more attention
from external, professional critics, whereas
actors at the core receive recognition from
their peers (Cattani, Ferriani, and Allison
2014).
In summary, women suffer a “closure pen-
alty” in cohesive projects, because their iden-
tity relationships (multiplex ties to the same
sex) are more likely to be less powerful,
whereas men’s identity ties tend to be of
higher status. However, being “unbound,”
women benefit from diversity because they
are free to exploit it. They also have little
choice other than to exploit diversity, because
they do not naturally profit from internal
sponsors as men do. Consequently, women
are more cautious and strategic in making
choices.
at Max Planck Society on May 2, 2016asr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
